wdiff draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt

Network
CCAMP Working Group Eric Mannie (Ebone) - Editor
Internet Draft
Expiration date: Sept. 2002 Peter Ashwood-Smith (Nortel)
Daniel Awduche (Movaz)
Ayan Banerjee (Calient)
Debashis Basak (Accelight)
Lou Berger (Movaz)
Greg Bernstein (Ciena)
Sudheer Dharanikota (Nayna)
John Drake (Calient)
Yanhe Fan (Axiowave)
Don Fedyk (Nortel)
Gert Grammel (Alcatel)
Dan Guo (Turin)
Kireeti Kompella (Juniper)
Alan Kullberg (NetPlane)
Jonathan P. Lang (Calient)
Fong Liaw (Zaffire)
Thomas D. Nadeau (Cisco)
Lyndon Ong (Ciena)
Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel)
Dimitrios Pendarakis (Tellium)
Bala Rajagopalan (Tellium)
Yakov Rekhter (Juniper)
Debanjan Saha (Tellium)
Hal Sandick (Nortel)
Vishal Sharma (Metanoia)
George Swallow (Cisco)
Z. Bo Tang (Tellium)
Jennifer Yates (AT&T)
George R. Young (Edgeflow)
John Yu (Zaffire)
Alex Zinin (Nexsi Systems)

March Feb. 2003 August 2002

Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Architecture

draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt

draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt

Status of this Memo

This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026 [1].

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.

E. Mannie et. al. 1
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March 2002

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."

The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

Abstract

Future data and transmission networks will consist of elements such
as routers, switches, DWDM systems, Add-Drop Multiplexors (ADMs),
photonic cross-connects (PXCs), optical cross-connects (OXCs), etc
that will use Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) to dynamically provision
resources and to provide network survivability using protection and
restoration techniques.

This document describes the architecture of GMPLS. GMPLS extends
MPLS to encompass time-division (e.g. SDH/SONET, PDH, G.709),
wavelength (lambdas), and spatial switching (e.g. incoming port or
fiber to outgoing port or fiber). The main focus of GMPLS is on the
control plane of these various layers since each of them can use
physically diverse data or forwarding planes. The intention is to
cover both the signaling and the routing part of that control plane.

E. Mannie et. al. 1
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

Table of Contents

Status of this Memo................................................1
Abstract...........................................................1
Table of Contents..................................................2
1. Abstract........................................................4 Contributors....................................................4
2. Conventions used in this document...............................4 document...............................7
3. Introduction....................................................4 Introduction....................................................7
3.1. Acronyms & abbreviations......................................5 abbreviations......................................7
3.2. Multiple Types of Switching and Forwarding Hierarchies........5 Hierarchies........8
3.3. Extension of the MPLS Control Plane...........................7 Plane..........................10
3.4. GMPLS Key Extensions to MPLS-TE..............................10 MPLS-TE..............................12
4. Routing and addressing model...................................11 model...................................13
4.1. Addressing of PSC and non-PSC layers.........................12 layers.........................14
4.2. GMPLS scalability enhancements...............................12 enhancements...............................15
4.3. TE Extensions to IP routing protocols........................13 protocols........................15
5. Unnumbered links...............................................14 links...............................................16
5.1. Unnumbered Forwarding Adjacencies............................15 Adjacencies............................17
6. Link bundling..................................................15 bundling..................................................18
6.1. Restrictions on bundling.....................................16 bundling.....................................18
6.2. Routing considerations for bundling..........................16 bundling..........................18
6.3. Signaling considerations.....................................17 considerations.....................................19
6.3.1. Mechanism 1: Implicit Indication...........................17 Indication...........................20
6.3.2. Mechanism 2: Explicit Indication by Numbered Interface ID..17 ID..20
6.3.3. Mechanism 3: Explicit Indication by Unnumbered Interface ID17 ID20
6.4. Unnumbered Bundled Link......................................18 Link......................................20
6.5. Forming bundled links........................................18 links........................................21
7. Relationship with the UNI......................................19 UNI......................................21
7.1. Relationship with the OIF UNI................................19 UNI................................22
7.2. Reachability across the UNI..................................19 UNI..................................22
8. Link Management................................................20 Management................................................23
8.1. Control channel and control channel management...............21 management...............23
8.2. Link property correlation....................................22 correlation....................................25
8.3. Link connectivity verification...............................22 verification...............................25
8.4. Fault management.............................................23 management.............................................25
8.5 LMP for DWDM Optical Line Systems (OLSs)......................23 (OLSs)......................26
9. Generalized Signaling..........................................25 Signaling..........................................27
9.1. Overview: How to Request an LSP..............................26 LSP..............................29
9.2. Generalized Label Request....................................27 Request....................................30
9.3. SONET/SDH Traffic Parameters.................................28 Parameters.................................31
9.4. G.709 Traffic Parameters.....................................29 Parameters.....................................32
9.5. Bandwidth Encoding...........................................30 Encoding...........................................32
9.6. Generalized Label............................................30 Label............................................33
9.7. Waveband Switching...........................................31

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 2
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March 2002 Switching...........................................33
9.8. Label Suggestion by the Upstream.............................31 Upstream.............................34
9.9. Label Restriction by the Upstream............................32 Upstream............................34
9.10. Bi-directional LSP..........................................32 LSP..........................................35
9.11. Bi-directional LSP Contention Resolution....................33 Resolution....................36
9.12. Rapid Notification of Failure...............................33 Failure...............................36
9.13. Link Protection.............................................34 Protection.............................................37
9.14. Explicit Routing and Explicit Label Control.................35 Control.................37
9.15. Route recording.............................................36 recording.............................................38
9.16. LSP modification and LSP re-routing.........................36 re-routing.........................39
9.17. LSP administrative status handling..........................37 handling..........................39

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft February 2003 2
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

9.18. Control channel separation..................................37 separation..................................40
10. Forwarding Adjacencies (FA)...................................38 (FA)...................................41
10.1. Routing and Forwarding Adjacencies..........................39 Adjacencies..........................41
10.2. Signaling aspects...........................................40 aspects...........................................42
10.3. Cascading of Forwarding Adjacencies.........................40 Adjacencies.........................42
11. Routing and Signaling Adjacencies.............................41 Adjacencies.............................43
12. Control Plane Fault Handling..................................42 Handling..................................44
13. LSP Protection and Restoration................................43 Restoration................................45
13.1. Protection escalation across domains and layers.............43 layers.............46
13.2. Mapping of Services to P&R Resources........................44 Resources........................46
13.3. Classification of P&R mechanism characteristics.............45 characteristics.............47
13.4. Different Stages in P&R.....................................45 P&R.....................................47
13.5. Recovery Strategies.........................................46 Strategies.........................................48
13.6. Recovery mechanisms: Protection schemes.....................46 schemes.....................48
13.7. Recovery mechanisms: Restoration schemes....................47 schemes....................49
13.8. Schema selection criteria...................................48 criteria...................................50
14. Network Management............................................49 Management............................................51
14.1. Network Management Systems (NMS)............................49 (NMS)............................51
14.2. Management Information Base (MIB)...........................50 (MIB)...........................52
14.3. Tools.......................................................50 Tools.......................................................52
14.4. Fault Correlation Between Multiple Layers...................50 Layers...................52
15. Security considerations.......................................51 considerations.......................................53
16. Acknowledgements..............................................52 Acknowledgements..............................................54
17. References....................................................53 References....................................................55
18. Author's Addresses............................................55 Address..............................................57
Full Copyright Statement..........................................58

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 February 2003 3
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

1. Abstract

2. Conventions used in this document

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in
this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [2].

3. Introduction

The architecture presented in this document covers the main building
blocks needed to build a consistent control plane for multiple
switching layers. It does not restrict the way that these layers
work together. Different models can be applied: e.g. overlay,
augmented or integrated. Moreover, each pair of contiguous layer may
work jointly in a different way, resulting in a number of possible
combinations, at the discretion of manufacturers and operators.

This architecture clearly separates the control plane and the
forwarding plane. In addition, it also clearly separates the control
plane in two parts, the signaling plane containing the signaling
protocols and the routing plane containing the routing protocols.

This document is a generalization of the MPLS architecture
[RFC3031], and in some cases may differ slightly from that
architecture since non packet-based forwarding planes are now
considered. It is not the intention of this document to describe
concepts already described in the current MPLS architecture. The
goal is to describe specific concepts of Generalized MPLS (GMPLS).

However, some of the concepts explained hereafter are not part of
the current MPLS architecture and are applicable to both MPLS and
GMPLS (i.e. link bundling, unnumbered links, and LSP hierarchy).
Since these concepts were introduced together with GMPLS and since
they are of paramount importance for an operational GMPLS network,
they will be discussed here.

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 4
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March 2002

The organization of the remainder of this draft is as follows. We
begin with an introduction of GMPLS. We then present the specific
GMPLS building blocks and explain how they can be combined together
to build an operational GMPLS networks. Specific details of the
separate building blocks can be found in the corresponding
documents.

3.1. Acronyms & abbreviations

ABR Area Border Router
AS Autonomous System
ASBR Autonomous System Boundary Router
BGP Border Gateway Protocol
CR-LDP Constraint-based Routing LDP
CSPF Constraint-based Shortest Path First
DWDM Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing
FA Forwarding Adjacency
GMPLS Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
IGP Interior Gateway Protocol
LDP Label Distribution Protocol
LMP Link Management Protocol
LSA Link State Advertisement
LSR Label Switching Router
LSP Label Switched Path
MIB Management Information Base
MPLS Multi-Protocol Label Switching
NMS Network Management System
OXC Optical Cross-Connect
PXC Photonic Cross-Connect
RSVP ReSource reserVation Protocol
SDH Synchronous Digital Hierarchy
STM(-N) Synchronous Transport Module (-N)
STS(-N) Synchronous Transport Signal-Level N (SONET)
TE Traffic Engineering

3.2. Multiple Types of Switching and Forwarding Hierarchies

Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) differs from traditional MPLS in that it
supports multiple types of switching, i.e. the addition of support
for TDM, lambda, and fiber (port) switching. The support for the
additional types of switching has driven GMPLS to extend certain
base functions of traditional MPLS and, in some cases, to add
functionality. These changes and additions impact basic LSP
properties, how labels are requested and communicated, the
unidirectional nature of LSPs, how errors are propagated, and
information provided for synchronizing the ingress and egress LSRs.

The MPLS architecture [RFC3031] was defined to support the
forwarding of data based on a label. In this architecture, Label
Switching Routers (LSRs) were assumed to have a forwarding plane
that is capable of (a) recognizing either packet or cell boundaries,
and (b) being able to process either packet headers (for LSRs
capable of recognizing packet boundaries) or cell headers (for LSRs
capable of recognizing cell boundaries).

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 5
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March 2002

The original MPLS architecture is here being extended to include
LSRs whose forwarding plane recognizes neither packet, nor cell
boundaries, and therefore, can't forward data based on the
information carried in either packet or cell headers. Specifically,
such LSRs include devices where the forwarding decision is based on
time slots, wavelengths, or physical ports. So, the new set of LSRs,
or more precisely interfaces on these LSRs, can be subdivided into
the following classes:

1. Packet Switch Capable (PSC) interfaces:

Interfaces that recognize packet boundaries and can forward data
based on the content of the packet header. Examples include
interfaces on routers that forward data based on the content of the
IP header and interfaces on routers that forward data based on the
content of the MPLS "shim" header.

2. Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC) interfaces:

Interfaces that recognize frame/cell boundaries and can forward data
based on the content of the frame/cell header. Examples include
interfaces on Ethernet bridges that forward data based on the
content of the MAC header and interfaces on ATM-LSRs that forward
data based on the ATM VPI/VCI.

3. Time-Division Multiplex Capable (TDM) interfaces:

Interfaces that forward data based on the data's time slot in a
repeating cycle. An example of such an interface is that of a
SDH/SONET Cross-Connect (XC), Terminal Multiplexer (TM), or Add-Drop
Multiplexer (ADM). Other examples include interfaces providing G.709
TDM capabilities (the "digital wrapper") and PDH interfaces.

4. Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) interfaces:

Interfaces that forward data based on the wavelength on which the
data is received. An example of such an interface is that of a
Photonic Cross-Connect (PXC) or Optical Cross-Connect (OXC) that can
operate at the level of an individual wavelength. Additional
examples include PXC interfaces that can operate at the level of a
group of wavelengths, i.e. a waveband and G.709 interfaces providing
optical capabilities.

5. Fiber-Switch Capable (FSC) interfaces:

Interfaces that forward data based on a position of the data in the
real world physical spaces. An example of such an interface is that
of a PXC or OXC that can operate at the level of a single or
multiple fibers.

A circuit can be established only between, or through, interfaces of
the same type. Depending on the particular technology being used for
each interface, different circuit names can be used, e.g. SDH

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 6
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March 2002

circuit, optical trail, light-path, etc. In the context of GMPLS,
all these circuits are referenced by a common name: Label Switched
Path (LSP).

The concept of nested LSP (LSP within LSP), already available in the
traditional MPLS, facilitates building a forwarding hierarchy, i.e.
a hierarchy of LSPs. This hierarchy of LSPs can occur on the same
interface, or between different interfaces.

For example, a hierarchy can be built if an interface is capable of
multiplexing several LSPs from the same technology (layer), e.g. a
lower order SDH/SONET LSP (VC-12) nested in a higher order SDH/SONET
LSP (VC-4). Several levels of signal (LSP) nesting are defined in
the SDH/SONET multiplexing hierarchy.

The nesting can also occur between interfaces. At the top of the
hierarchy are FSC interfaces, followed by LSC interfaces, followed
by TDM interfaces, followed by L2SC, and followed by PSC interfaces.
This way, an LSP that starts and ends on a PSC interface can be
nested (together with other LSPs) into an LSP that starts and ends
on a L2SC interface. This LSP, in turn, can be nested (together with
other LSPs) into an LSP that starts and ends on an TDM interface,
which in turn can be nested (together with other LSPs) into an LSP
that starts and ends on a LSC interface, which in turn can be nested
(together with other LSPs) into an LSP that starts and ends on a FSC
interface.

3.3. Extension of the MPLS Control Plane

The establishment of LSPs that span only Packet Switch Capable (PSC)
or Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC) interfaces is defined for the
original MPLS and/or MPLS-TE control planes. GMPLS extends these
control planes to support each of the five classes of interfaces
(i.e. layers) defined in the previous section.

Note that the GMPLS control plane supports an overlay model, an
augmented model, and a peer (integrated) model. In the near term,
GMPLS is very suitable for controlling each layer independently.
This elegant approach will facilitate the future deployment of other
models.

The GMPLS control plane is made of several building blocks are
described in more detail in the following sections. These building
blocks are based on well-known signaling and routing protocols that
have been extended and/or modified to support GMPLS. They use IPv4
and/or IPv6 addresses. Only one new specialized protocol is required
to support the operations of GMPLS, a signaling protocol for link
management [LMP].

GMPLS is indeed based on the Traffic Engineering (TE) extensions to
MPLS, a.k.a. MPLS-TE. This because most of the technologies that can
be used below the PSC level require some traffic engineering. The
placement of LSPs at these levels needs in general to take several
constraints into consideration (such as framing, bandwidth,

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 7
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March 2002

protection capability, etc) and to bypass the legacy Shortest-Path
First (SPF) algorithm. Note, however, that this is not mandatory and
that in some cases SPF routing can be applied.

In order to facilitate constrained-based SPF routing of LSPs, the
nodes performing LSP establishment need more information about the
links in the network than standard intra-domain routing protocols
provide. These TE attributes are distributed using the transport
mechanisms already available in IGPs (e.g. flooding) and taken into
consideration by the LSP routing algorithm. Optimization of the LSP
routes may also require some external simulations using heuristics
that serve as input for the actual path calculation and LSP
establishment process.

By definition, a TE link is a representation in the ISIS/OSPF Link
State advertisements and in the link state database of certain
physical resources, and their properties, between two GMPLS nodes.
TE Links are used by the GMPLS control plane (routing and signaling)
for establishing LSPs.

Extensions to traditional routing protocols and algorithms are
needed to uniformly encode and carry TE link information, and
explicit routes (e.g. source routes) are required in the signaling.
In addition, the signaling must now be capable of transporting the
required circuit (LSP) parameters such as the bandwidth, the type of
signal, the desired protection and/or restoration, the position in a
particular multiplex, etc. Most of these extensions have already
been defined for PSC and L2SC traffic engineering with MPLS. GMPLS
primarily defines additional extensions for TDM, LSC, and FSC
traffic engineering. A very few elements are technology specific.

Thus, GMPLS extends the two signaling protocols defined for MPLS-TE
signaling, i.e. RSVP-TE and CR-LDP. However, GMPLS does not specify
which one of these two signaling protocols must be used. It is the
role of manufacturers and operators to evaluate the two possible
solutions for their own interest.

Since GMPLS is based on RSVP-TE and CR-LDP, it mandates a
downstream-on-demand label allocation and distribution, with an
ingress initiated ordered control. Liberal label retention is
normally used, but conservative label retention mode could also be
used. Furthermore, there is no restriction on the label allocation
strategy, it can be request/signaling driven (obvious for circuit
switching technologies), traffic/data driven, or even topology
driven. There is also no restriction on the route selection;
explicit routing is normally used (strict or loose) but hop-by-hop
routing could be used as well.

GMPLS also extends two traditional intra-domain link-state routing
protocols already extended for TE purposes, i.e. OSPF-TE and IS-IS-
TE. However, if explicit (source) routing is used, the routing
algorithms used by these protocols no longer need to be
standardized. Extensions for inter-domain routing (e.g. BGP) are for
further study.

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 8
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March 2002

The use of technologies like DWDM (Dense Wavelength Division
Multiplexing) implies that we can now have a very large number of
parallel links between two directly adjacent nodes (hundreds of
wavelengths, or even thousands of wavelengths if multiple fibers are
used). Such a large number of links was not originally considered
for an IP or MPLS control plane, although it could be done. Some
slight adaptations of that control plane are thus required if we
want to better reuse it in the GMPLS context.

For instance, the traditional IP routing model assumes the
establishment of a routing adjacency over each link connecting two
adjacent nodes. Having such a large number of adjacencies does not
scale well. Each node needs to maintain each of its adjacencies one
by one, and link state routing information must be flooded
throughout the network.

To solve this issue the concept of link bundling was introduced.
Moreover, the manual configuration and control of these links, even
if they are unnumbered, becomes impractical. The Link Management
Protocol (LMP) was specified to solve these issues.

LMP runs between data plane adjacent nodes and is used to manage TE
links. Specifically, LMP provides mechanisms to maintain control
channel connectivity (IP Control Channel Maintenance), verify the
physical connectivity of the data-bearing links (Link Verification),
correlate the link property information (Link Property Correlation),
and manage link failures (Fault Localization and Fault
Notification). A unique feature of LMP is that it is able to
localize faults in both opaque and transparent networks (i.e.
independent of the encoding scheme and bit rate used for the data).

LMP is defined in the context of GMPLS, but is specified
independently of the GMPLS signaling specification since it is a
local protocol running between data-plane adjacent nodes. As a
result, LMP can be used in other contexts with non-GMPLS signaling
protocols.

The MPLS signaling and routing protocols require at least one bi-
directional control channel to communicate even if two adjacent
nodes are connected by unidirectional links. Several control
channels can be used. LMP can be used to establish, maintain and
manage these control channels.

GMPLS does not specify how these control channels must be
implemented, but GMPLS requires IP to transport the signaling and
routing protocols over them. Control channels can be either in-band
or out-of-band, and several solutions can be used to carry IP. Note
also that one type of LMP message (the Test message) is used in-band
in the data plane and may not be transported over IP, but this is a
particular case, needed to verify connectivity in the data plane.

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 9
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March 2002

3.4. GMPLS Key Extensions to MPLS-TE

Some key extensions brought by GMPLS to MPLS-TE are highlighted in
the following. Some of them are key advantages of GMPLS to control
TDM, LSC and FSC layers.

- In MPLS-TE, links traversed by an LSP can include an intermix of
links with heterogeneous label encoding (e.g. links between routers,
links between routers and ATM-LSRs, and links between ATM-LSRs.
GMPLS extends this by including links where the label is encoded as
a time slot, or a wavelength, or a position in the real world
physical space.

- In MPLS-TE, an LSP that carries IP has to start and end on a
router. GMPLS extends this by requiring an LSP to start and end on
similar type of LSR.

- The type of a payload that can be carried in GMPLS by an LSP is
extended to allow such payloads as SONET/SDH, G.709, 1 or 10Gb
Ethernet, etc.

- The use of Forwarding Adjacencies (FA), provides a mechanism that
can improve bandwidth utilization, when bandwidth allocation can be
performed only in discrete units, as well as a mechanism to
aggregate forwarding state, thus allowing the number of required
labels to be reduced.

- GMPLS allows for a label to be suggested by an upstream node to
reduce the setup latency. This suggestion may be overridden by a
downstream node but, in some cases, at the cost of higher LSP setup
time.

- GMPLS extends on the notion of restricting the range of labels
that may be selected by a downstream node. In GMPLS, an upstream
node may restrict the labels for an LSP along either a single hop or
along the entire LSP path. This feature is useful in photonic
networks where wavelength conversion may not be available.

- While traditional TE-based (and even LDP-based) LSPs are
unidirectional, GMPLS supports the establishment of bi-directional
LSPs.

- GMPLS supports the termination of an LSP on a specific egress
port, i.e. the port selection at the destination side.

- GMPLS with RSVP-TE supports an RSVP specific mechanism for rapid
failure notification.

Note also some other key differences between MPLS-TE and GMPLS:

- For TDM, LSC and FSC interfaces, bandwidth allocation for an LSP
can be performed only in discrete units. Contributors

Peter Ashwood-Smith Eric Mannie
Nortel Networks Corp. Ebone (GTS)
P.O. Box 3511 Station C, Terhulpsesteenweg 6A
Ottawa, ON K1Y 4H7 1560 Hoeilaart
Canada Belgium
Phone: +1 613 763-4534 Phone: +32 2 658-5652
Email: Email: eric.mannie@gts.com
petera@nortelnetworks.com

Daniel O. Awduche Thomas D. Nadeau
Movaz Networks Cisco Systems, Inc.
7296 Jones Branch Drive 250 Apollo Drive
Suite 615 Chelmsford, MA 01824
McLean, VA 22102 USA
USA Phone: +1 978 244-3051
Phone: +1 703 847-7350 Email: tnadeau@cisco.com
Email: awduche@movaz.com

Ayan Banerjee Lyndon Ong
Calient Networks Ciena Systems
5853 Rue Ferrari 10480 Ridgeview Ct
San Jose, CA 95138 Cupertino, CA 95014
USA USA
Phone: +1 408 972-3645 Email: lyong@ciena.com
Email: abanerjee@calient.net

Debashis Basak Dimitri Papadimitriou
Accelight Networks Alcatel
70 Abele Road, Bldg.1200 Francis Wellesplein, 1
Bridgeville, PA 15017 B-2018 Antwerpen
USA Belgium
Phone: +1 412 220-2102 (ext115) Phone: +32 3 240-8491
email: dbasak@accelight.com Email:
dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be

Lou Berger Dimitrios Pendarakis
Movaz Networks, Inc. Tellium, Inc.
7926 Jones Branch Drive 2 Crescent Place
Suite 615 P.O. Box 901
MCLean VA, 22102 Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901
USA USA
Phone: +1 703 847-1801 Email: DPendarakis@tellium.com
Email: lberger@movaz.com

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft February 2003 4
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

Greg Bernstein Bala Rajagopalan
Ciena Corporation Tellium, Inc.
10480 Ridgeview Court 2 Crescent Place
Cupertino, CA 94014 P.O. Box 901
USA Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901
Phone: +1 408 366-4713 USA
Email: greg@ciena.com Phone: +1 732 923-4237
Email: braja@tellium.com

Sudheer Dharanikota Yakov Rekhter
Nayna Networks Inc. Juniper
481 Sycamore Drive Email: yakov@juniper.net
Milpitas, CA 95035
USA
Email: sudheer@nayna.com

John Drake Debanjan Saha
Calient Networks Tellium Optical Systems
5853 Rue Ferrari 2 Crescent Place
San Jose, CA 95138 Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901
USA USA
Phone: +1 408 972-3720 Phone: +1 732 923-4264
Email: jdrake@calient.net Email: dsaha@tellium.com

Yanhe Fan Hal Sandick
Axiowave Networks, Inc. Nortel Networks
200 Nickerson Road Email:
Marlborough, MA 01752 hsandick@nortelnetworks.com
USA
Phone: +1 774 348-4627
Email: yfan@axiowave.com

Don Fedyk Vishal Sharma
Nortel Networks Corp. Metanoia, Inc.
600 Technology Park Drive 305 Elan Village Lane, Unit
Billerica, MA 01821 121
USA San Jose, CA 95134-2545
Phone: +1 978 288-4506 USA
Email: Phone: +1 408 895-5030
dwfedyk@nortelnetworks.com Email: vsharma87@yahoo.com

Gert Grammel George Swallow
Alcatel Cisco Systems, Inc.
Via Trento, 30 250 Apollo Drive
20059 Vimercate (Mi) Chelmsford, MA 01824
Italy USA
Email: gert.grammel@alcatel.it Phone: +1 978 244-8143
Email: swallow@cisco.com

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft February 2003 5
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

Dan Guo Z. Bo Tang
Turin Networks, Inc. Tellium, Inc.
1415 N. McDowell Blvd, 2 Crescent Place
Petaluma, CA 95454 P.O. Box 901
USA Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901
Email: dguo@turinnetworks.com USA
Phone: +1 732 923-4231
Email: btang@tellium.com

Kireeti Kompella Jennifer Yates
Juniper Networks, Inc. AT&T
1194 N. Mathilda Ave. 180 Park Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94089 Florham Park, NJ 07932
USA USA
Email: kireeti@juniper.net Email: jyates@research.att.com

Alan Kullberg George R. Young
NetPlane Systems, Inc. Edgeflow
888 Washington St. 329 March Road
Dedham, MA 02026 Ottawa, Ontario, K2K 2E1
USA Canada
Phone: +1 781 251-5319 Email:
Email: akullber@netplane.com george.young@edgeflow.com

Jonathan P. Lang John Yu
Calient Networks Zaffire Inc.
25 Castilian 2630 Orchard Parkway
Goleta, CA 93117 San Jose, CA 95134
Email: jplang@calient.net USA
Email: jzyu@zaffire.com

Fong Liaw Alex Zinin
Zaffire Inc. Alcatel
2630 Orchard Parkway 1420 North McDowell Ave
San Jose, CA 95134 M/S 1400-HRPB6
USA Petaluma, CA 94954
Email: fliaw@zaffire.com USA
Email: alex.zinin@alcatel.com

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 10
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March February 2003 6
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

- It is expected to have (much) fewer labels on TDM, LSC or FSC
links than on PSC or L2SC links, because the former are physical
labels instead of logical labels.

4. Routing and addressing model

GMPLS is based on the IP routing and addressing models. This assumes
that IPv4 and/or IPv6 addresses are used to identify interfaces and
that traditional (distributed) IP routing protocols are also reused.
Indeed, the discovery of the topology and the resource state of all
links in a routing domain is achieved via these routing protocols.

Since control and data planes are de-coupled in GMPLS, control-plane
neighbors (i.e. IGP-learnt neighbors) may not be anymore data-plane
neighbors, hence mechanisms like LMP are needed to associate TE
links with neighboring nodes.

IP addresses are not used only to identify interfaces of IP hosts
and routers, but more generally to identify any PSC and non-PSC
interfaces. Similarly, IP routing protocols are used to find routes
for IP datagrams with a SPF algorithm, and are also used to find
routes for non-PSC circuits by using a CSPF algorithm.

However, some additional mechanisms are needed to increase the
scalability of these models

2. Conventions used in this document

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in
this document are to deal with specific traffic
engineering requirements of non-PSC layers. These mechanisms will be
introduced interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [2].

3. Introduction

The architecture presented in this document covers the following.

Re-using existing IP routing protocols allows for non-PSC layers main building
blocks needed to
take advantages of all the valuable developments that took place
since years build a consistent control plane for IP routing, in particular in multiple
switching layers. It does not restrict the context of intra-
domain routing (link-state routing) and inter-domain routing (policy
routing).

In an overlay model, each particular non-PSC layer way that these layers
work together. Different models can be seen as a
set applied: e.g. overlay,
augmented or integrated. Moreover, each pair of Autonomous Systems (ASs) interconnected contiguous layer may
work jointly in an arbitrary way.
Similarly to the traditional IP routing, each AS is managed by a
single administrative authority. For instance, an AS can be an
SDH/SONET network operated by different way, resulting in a given carrier. The set of
interconnected ASs being an SDH/SONET Internetwork.

Exchange number of routing information between ASs can be done via an
inter-domain routing protocol like BGP-4. There is obviously a huge
value possible
combinations, at the discretion of re-using well-known policy routing facilities provided by
BGP in a non-PSC context. Extensions for BGP traffic engineering
(BGP-TE) manufacturers and operators.

This architecture clearly separates the control plane and the
forwarding plane. In addition, it also clearly separates the control
plane in two parts, the context of non-PSC layers are left for further
study.

Each AS can be subdivided in different routing domains, signaling plane containing the signaling
protocols and each can
run a different intra-domain the routing protocol. In turn, each
routing-domain can be divided in areas.

A plane containing the routing domain protocols.

This document is made of GMPLS enabled nodes (i.e. a network
device including a GMPLS entity). These nodes can be either edge

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 11
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March 2002

nodes (i.e. hosts, ingress LSRs or egress LSRs), or internal LSRs.
An example generalization of non-PSC host is an SDH/SONET Terminal Multiplexer
(TM). Another example is an SDH/SONET interface card within an IP
router or ATM switch.

Note that traffic engineering in the intra-domain requires MPLS architecture
[RFC3031], and in some cases may differ slightly from that
architecture since non packet-based forwarding planes are now
considered. It is not the use intention of link-state routing protocols like OSPF or IS-IS.

GMPLS defines extensions this document to these protocols. These extensions are
needed describe
concepts already described in the current MPLS architecture. The
goal is to disseminate describe specific TDM, LSC and FSC static concepts of Generalized MPLS (GMPLS).

However, some of the concepts explained hereafter are not part of
the current MPLS architecture and dynamic
characteristics related are applicable to nodes both MPLS and links. The current focus is on
intra-area traffic engineering. However, inter-area traffic
engineering is also under investigation.

4.1. Addressing of PSC
GMPLS (i.e. link bundling, unnumbered links, and non-PSC layers

The fact that IPv4 and/or IPv6 addresses LSP hierarchy).
Since these concepts were introduced together with GMPLS and since
they are used doesn't imply at
all that of paramount importance for an operational GMPLS network,
they should will be allocated in discussed here.

The organization of the same addressing space than
public IPv4 and/or IPv6 addresses used for remainder of this draft is as follows. We
begin with an introduction of GMPLS. We then present the Internet. Private IP
addresses specific
GMPLS building blocks and explain how they can be used if they don't require combined together
to be exchanged with any
other operator, public IP addresses are otherwise required. Of
course, if build an integrated model is used, two layers could share operational GMPLS networks. Specific details of the
same addressing space.

Note
separate building blocks can be found in the corresponding
documents.

3.1. Acronyms & abbreviations

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft February 2003 7
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

LDP Label Distribution Protocol
LMP Link Management Protocol
LSA Link State Advertisement
LSR Label Switching Router
LSP Label Switched Path
MIB Management Information Base
MPLS Multi-Protocol Label Switching
NMS Network Management System
OXC Optical Cross-Connect
PXC Photonic Cross-Connect
RSVP ReSource reserVation Protocol
SDH Synchronous Digital Hierarchy
STM(-N) Synchronous Transport Module (-N)
STS(-N) Synchronous Transport Signal-Level N (SONET)
TE Traffic Engineering

3.2. Multiple Types of Switching and Forwarding Hierarchies

Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) differs from traditional MPLS in that there is a benefit it
supports multiple types of using public IPv4 and/or IPv6
Internet addresses for non-PSC layers if an integrated model with switching, i.e. the IP layer is foreseen.

If we consider addition of support
for TDM, lambda, and fiber (port) switching. The support for the scalability enhancements proposed
additional types of switching has driven GMPLS to extend certain
base functions of traditional MPLS and, in the next
section, the IPv4 (32 bits) some cases, to add
functionality. These changes and additions impact basic LSP
properties, how labels are requested and communicated, the IPv6 (128 bits) addressing
spaces
unidirectional nature of LSPs, how errors are both more than sufficient propagated, and
information provided for synchronizing the ingress and egress LSRs.

The MPLS architecture [RFC3031] was defined to accommodate any non-PSC
layer. We can reasonably expect support the
forwarding of data based on a label. In this architecture, Label
Switching Routers (LSRs) were assumed to have much less non-PSC devices
(e.g. SDH/SONET nodes) than we have today IP hosts a forwarding plane
that is capable of (a) recognizing either packet or cell boundaries,
and routers.

4.2. GMPLS scalability enhancements

TDM, LSC (b) being able to process either packet headers (for LSRs
capable of recognizing packet boundaries) or cell headers (for LSRs
capable of recognizing cell boundaries).

The original MPLS architecture is here being extended to include
LSRs whose forwarding plane recognizes neither packet, nor cell
boundaries, and FSC layers introduce therefore, can't forward data based on the
information carried in either packet or cell headers. Specifically,
such LSRs include devices where the forwarding decision is based on
time slots, wavelengths, or physical ports. So, the new constraints set of LSRs,
or more precisely interfaces on these LSRs, can be subdivided into
the IP
addressing following classes:

1. Packet Switch Capable (PSC) interfaces:

Interfaces that recognize packet boundaries and routing models since several hundreds of parallel
physical links (e.g. wavelengths) can now connect two nodes. Most of forward data
based on the carriers already have today several tens of wavelengths per
fiber between two nodes. New generation content of DWDM systems will allow
several hundreds the packet header. Examples include
interfaces on routers that forward data based on the content of wavelengths per fiber.

It becomes rather impractical to associate an the
IP address with each
end of each physical link, to represent each link as a separate
routing adjacency, and to advertise header and to maintain link states for
each of these links. For interfaces on routers that purpose, GMPLS enhances the MPLS
routing and addressing models to increase their scalability.

Two optional mechanisms can be used to increase forward data based on the scalability
content of the addressing and the routing: unnumbered links and link bundling.
These two mechanisms can also be combined. They require extensions
to signaling (RSVP-TE and CR-LDP) and routing (OSPF-TE and IS-IS-TE)
protocols. MPLS "shim" header.

2. Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC) interfaces:

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 12
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March February 2003 8
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

4.3. TE Extensions to IP routing protocols

Traditionally,

3. Time-Division Multiplex Capable (TDM) interfaces:

Interfaces that forward data based on the data's time slot in a TE link is advertised as
repeating cycle. An example of such an adjunct to interface is that of a "regular"
OSPF
SDH/SONET Cross-Connect (XC), Terminal Multiplexer (TM), or IS-IS link, i.e., an adjacency is brought up Add-Drop
Multiplexer (ADM). Other examples include interfaces providing G.709
TDM capabilities (the "digital wrapper") and PDH interfaces.

4. Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) interfaces:

Interfaces that forward data based on the link,
and when wavelength on which the link
data is up, both the regular IGP properties received. An example of such an interface is that of a
Photonic Cross-Connect (PXC) or Optical Cross-Connect (OXC) that can
operate at the link
(basically, level of an individual wavelength. Additional
examples include PXC interfaces that can operate at the SPF metric) level of a
group of wavelengths, i.e. a waveband and the TE properties G.709 interfaces providing
optical capabilities.

5. Fiber-Switch Capable (FSC) interfaces:

Interfaces that forward data based on a position of the link are
then advertised.

However, GMPLS challenges this notion data in three ways:

- First, links that are non-PSC may yet have TE properties; however, the
real world physical spaces. An example of such an OSPF adjacency could not interface is that
of a PXC or OXC that can operate at the level of a single or
multiple fibers.

A circuit can be brought up directly established only between, or through, interfaces of
the same type. Depending on such links.

- Second, an LSP the particular technology being used for
each interface, different circuit names can be advertised as used, e.g. SDH
circuit, optical trail, light-path, etc. In the context of GMPLS,
all these circuits are referenced by a point-to-point TE link common name: Label Switched
Path (LSP).

The concept of nested LSP (LSP within LSP), already available in the routing protocol,
traditional MPLS, facilitates building a forwarding hierarchy, i.e. as
a Forwarding Adjacency (FA); thus, an
advertised TE link need no longer be hierarchy of LSPs. This hierarchy of LSPs can occur on the same
interface, or between two OSPF direct
neighbors. Forwarding Adjacencies (FA) are further described in a
separate section.

- Third, different interfaces.

For example, a number of links may hierarchy can be advertised as a single TE link
(e.g. for improved scalability), so again, there built if an interface is no longer a one-
to-one association capable of
multiplexing several LSPs from the same technology (layer), e.g. a regular adjacency and a TE link.

Thus we have
lower order SDH/SONET LSP (VC-12) nested in a more general notion higher order SDH/SONET
LSP (VC-4). Several levels of signal (LSP) nesting are defined in
the SDH/SONET multiplexing hierarchy.

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft February 2003 9
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

nested (together with other LSPs) into an LSP that has TE properties, some of which may starts and ends
on a L2SC interface. This LSP, in turn, can be configured nested (together with
other LSPs) into an LSP that starts and ends on the advertising LSR, others an TDM interface,
which may in turn can be obtained from nested (together with other LSRs
by means of some protocol, LSPs) into an LSP
that starts and yet others ends on a LSC interface, which may in turn can be deduced from
the component(s) nested
(together with other LSPs) into an LSP that starts and ends on a FSC
interface.

3.3. Extension of the TE link.

An important TE property MPLS Control Plane

The establishment of a TE link LSPs that span only Packet Switch Capable (PSC)
or Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC) interfaces is related to the bandwidth
accounting defined for that link. the
original MPLS and/or MPLS-TE control planes. GMPLS will define different accounting
rules for different non-PSC layers. Generic bandwidth attributes are
however extends these
control planes to support each of the five classes of interfaces
(i.e. layers) defined by in the TE routing extensions previous section.

Note that the GMPLS control plane supports an overlay model, an
augmented model, and by GMPLS, such as a peer (integrated) model. In the unreserved bandwidth, near term,
GMPLS is very suitable for controlling each layer independently.
This elegant approach will facilitate the maximum reservable bandwidth, future deployment of other
models.

The GMPLS control plane is made of several building blocks are
described in more detail in the
maximum LSP bandwidth.

It following sections. These building
blocks are based on well-known signaling and routing protocols that
have been extended and/or modified to support GMPLS. They use IPv4
and/or IPv6 addresses. Only one new specialized protocol is expected in a dynamic environment required
to have frequent changes support the operations of
bandwidth accounting information. A flexible policy GMPLS, a signaling protocol for triggering link state updates
management [LMP].

GMPLS is indeed based on bandwidth thresholds and link-dampening
mechanism the Traffic Engineering (TE) extensions to
MPLS, a.k.a. MPLS-TE. This because most of the technologies that can
be implemented.

TE properties associated with a link should also capture protection
and restoration related characteristics. For instance, shared used below the PSC level require some traffic engineering. The
placement of LSPs at these levels needs in general to take several
constraints into consideration (such as framing, bandwidth,
protection can be elegantly combined with bundling. Protection capability, etc) and
restoration are mainly generic mechanisms also applicable to MPLS.
It bypass the legacy Shortest-Path
First (SPF) algorithm. Note, however, that this is expected not mandatory and
that they will first in some cases SPF routing can be developed for MPLS and later
on generalized applied.

In order to GMPLS.

A TE link between a pair facilitate constrained-based SPF routing of LSRs doesn't imply LSPs, the existence of an
IGP adjacency between these LSRs. A
nodes performing LSP establishment need more information about the
links in the network than standard intra-domain routing protocols
provide. These TE link must also have some
means by which attributes are distributed using the advertising LSR can know of its liveness transport
mechanisms already available in IGPs (e.g. flooding) and taken into
consideration by the LSP routing algorithm. Optimization of the LSP
routes may also require some external simulations using LMP hellos). When an LSR knows heuristics
that serve as input for the actual path calculation and LSP
establishment process.

By definition, a TE link is up, a representation in the ISIS/OSPF Link
State advertisements and can
determine in the TE link's TE link state database of certain
physical resources, and their properties, between two GMPLS nodes.
TE Links are used by the LSR may then advertise GMPLS control plane (routing and signaling)
for establishing LSPs.

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 13
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March February 2003 10
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

that link

Extensions to its GMPLS enhanced OSPF or IS-IS neighbors using the TE
objects/TLVs. We call the interfaces over which GMPLS enhanced OSPF
or ISIS adjacencies are established "control channels".

5. Unnumbered links

Unnumbered links (or interfaces) traditional routing protocols and algorithms are links (or interfaces) that do
not have IP addresses. Using such links involves two capabilities:
the ability
needed to specify unnumbered links in MPLS uniformly encode and carry TE signaling, link information, and
explicit routes (e.g. source routes) are required in the ability to carry (TE) information about unnumbered links signaling.
In addition, the signaling must now be capable of transporting the
required circuit (LSP) parameters such as the bandwidth, the type of
signal, the desired protection and/or restoration, the position in IGP
TE extensions a
particular multiplex, etc. Most of ISIS-TE these extensions have already
been defined for PSC and OSPF-TE.

A. The ability to L2SC traffic engineering with MPLS. GMPLS
primarily defines additional extensions for TDM, LSC, and FSC
traffic engineering. A very few elements are technology specific.

Thus, GMPLS extends the two signaling protocols defined for MPLS-TE
signaling, i.e. RSVP-TE and CR-LDP. However, GMPLS does not specify unnumbered links in MPLS TE
which one of these two signaling
requires extensions protocols must be used. It is the
role of manufacturers and operators to evaluate the two possible
solutions for their own interest.

Since GMPLS is based on RSVP-TE and CR-LDP. The MPLS-TE signaling
doesn't provide support for unnumbered links, because CR-LDP, it doesn�t
provide mandates a way to indicate an unnumbered link in its Explicit Route
Object/TLV
downstream-on-demand label allocation and in its Record Route Object (there distribution, with an
ingress initiated ordered control. Liberal label retention is
normally used, but conservative label retention mode could also be
used. Furthermore, there is no such TLV restriction on the label allocation
strategy, it can be request/signaling driven (obvious for CR-LDP). circuit
switching technologies), traffic/data driven, or even topology
driven. There is also no restriction on the route selection;
explicit routing is normally used (strict or loose) but hop-by-hop
routing could be used as well.

GMPLS defines simple extensions to indicate an
unnumbered link in these also extends two Objects/TLVs, using a new Unnumbered
Interface ID sub-object/sub-TLV.

Since unnumbered links are not identified by an IP address, then traditional intra-domain link-state routing
protocols already extended for the purpose of MPLS TE each end need some other identifier,
local to the LSR to which the link belongs. LSRs at the two end
points of an unnumbered link exchange with each other purposes, i.e. OSPF-TE and IS-IS-
TE. However, if explicit (source) routing is used, the
identifiers they assign routing
algorithms used by these protocols no longer need to the link. Exchanging the identifiers
may be accomplished by configuration, by means
standardized. Extensions for inter-domain routing (e.g. BGP) are for
further study.

The use of technologies like DWDM (Dense Wavelength Division
Multiplexing) implies that we can now have a protocol such
as LMP ([LMP]), by means very large number of RSVP/CR-LDP (especially in the case
where a link is a Forwarding Adjacency, see below), or by means
parallel links between two directly adjacent nodes (hundreds of
IS-IS
wavelengths, or OSPF extensions ([ISIS-GMPLS], [OSPF-GMPLS]).

Consider an (unnumbered) link between LSRs A and B. LSR A chooses
an identifier even thousands of wavelengths if multiple fibers are
used). Such a large number of links was not originally considered
for an IP or MPLS control plane, although it could be done. Some
slight adaptations of that link. So is LSR B. From A's perspective control plane are thus required if we
refer to the identifier that A assigned to the link as the "link
local identifier" (or just "local identifier"), and to the
identifier that B assigned to the link as the "link remote
identifier" (or just "remote identifier"). Likewise, from B's
perspective the identifier that B assigned
want to better reuse it in the link is the
local identifier, and GMPLS context.

For instance, the identifier that A assigned to traditional IP routing model assumes the
establishment of a routing adjacency over each link
is the remote identifier.

The new Unnumbered Interface ID sub-object/sub-TLV for the ER
Object/TLV contains the Router ID connecting two
adjacent nodes. Having such a large number of the LSR at the upstream end adjacencies does not
scale well. Each node needs to maintain each of the unnumbered link its adjacencies one
by one, and link state routing information must be flooded
throughout the outgoing interface identifier or network.

To solve this issue the concept of link local identifier with respect to that upstream LSR.

The new Unnumbered Interface ID sub-object for the RR Object
contains the outgoing interface identifier with respect to the LSR
that adds it in bundling was introduced.
Moreover, the RR Object. manual configuration and control of these links, even

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 14
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March February 2003 11
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

if they are unnumbered, becomes impractical. The ability Link Management
Protocol (LMP) was specified to carry (TE) information about unnumbered links in
IGP TE extensions requires new sub-TLVs for the extended IS
reachability TLV defined in ISIS-TE solve these issues.

LMP runs between data plane adjacent nodes and for the TE LSA (which is
an opaque LSA) defined in OSPF-TE. A Link Local Identifier sub-TLV
and a Link Remote Identifier sub-TLV are defined.

5.1. Unnumbered Forwarding Adjacencies

If an LSR that originates an LSP advertises this LSP as an
unnumbered FA in IS-IS or OSPF, or the LSR uses this FA as an
unnumbered component link of a bundled link, the LSR must allocate
an Interface ID used to that FA. If manage TE
links. Specifically, LMP provides mechanisms to maintain control
channel connectivity (IP Control Channel Maintenance), verify the LSP is bi-directional,
physical connectivity of the tail
end does data-bearing links (Link Verification),
correlate the same link property information (Link Property Correlation),
and allocates an Interface ID to the reverse FA.

Signaling has been enhanced to carry the Interface ID manage link failures (Fault Localization and Fault
Notification). A unique feature of a FA LMP is that it is able to
localize faults in the
new LSP Tunnel Interface ID object/TLV. This object/TLV contains the
Router ID both opaque and transparent networks (i.e.
independent of the LSR that generates it, encoding scheme and bit rate used for the Interface ID. It data).

LMP is
called the Forward Interface ID when it appears defined in a Path/REQUEST
message, and it the context of GMPLS, but is called specified
independently of the Reverse Interface ID when GMPLS signaling specification since it appears is a
local protocol running between data-plane adjacent nodes. As a
result, LMP can be used in the Resv/MAPPING message.

6. Link bundling other contexts with non-GMPLS signaling
protocols.

The concept MPLS signaling and routing protocols require at least one bi-
directional control channel to communicate even if two adjacent
nodes are connected by unidirectional links. Several control
channels can be used. LMP can be used to establish, maintain and
manage these control channels.

GMPLS does not specify how these control channels must be
implemented, but GMPLS requires IP to transport the signaling and
routing protocols over them. Control channels can be either in-band
or out-of-band, and several solutions can be used to carry IP. Note
also that one type of link bundling LMP message (the Test message) is essential used in-band
in certain networks
employing the GMPLS control data plane as and may not be transported over IP, but this is defined a
particular case, needed to verify connectivity in [BUNDLE]. A
typical example is an optical meshed network where adjacent optical
cross-connects (LSRs) the data plane.

3.4. GMPLS Key Extensions to MPLS-TE

Some key extensions brought by GMPLS to MPLS-TE are highlighted in
the following. Some of them are connected by several hundreds key advantages of parallel
wavelengths. GMPLS to control
TDM, LSC and FSC layers.

- In this network, consider the application MPLS-TE, links traversed by an LSP can include an intermix of link state
routing protocols, like OSPF or IS-IS,
links with suitable extensions for
resource discovery heterogeneous label encoding (e.g. links between routers,
links between routers and dynamic route computation. Each wavelength
must be advertised separately in order to be used, except if link
bundling is used.

When a pair of LSRs is connected ATM-LSRs, and links between ATM-LSRs.
GMPLS extends this by multiple links, it is possible
to advertise several (or all) of these including links where the label is encoded as
a single link into
OSPF and/or IS-IS. This process is called link bundling, time slot, or just
bundling. The resulting logical link is called a bundled link as its
physical links are called component links (and are identified by
interface indexes).

It results that wavelength, or a combination of three identifiers ((bundled) link
identifier, component link identifier, label) is sufficient to
unambiguously identify position in the appropriate resources used by real world
physical space.

- In MPLS-TE, an LSP.

The purpose of link bundling is to improve routing scalability by
reducing the amount of information LSP that carries IP has to be handled by OSPF
and/or IS-IS. This reduction is accomplished by performing
information aggregation/abstraction. As with any other information
aggregation/abstraction, start and end on a
router. GMPLS extends this results in losing some of the
information. To limit the amount by requiring an LSP to start and end on
similar type of losses one need to restrict the LSR.

- The type of the information a payload that can be aggregated/abstracted. carried in GMPLS by an LSP is
extended to allow such payloads as SONET/SDH, G.709, 1 or 10Gb
Ethernet, etc.

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 15
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March February 2003 12
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

6.1. Restrictions on bundling

- The following restrictions are required for bundling links. All
component links use of Forwarding Adjacencies (FA), provides a mechanism that
can improve bandwidth utilization, when bandwidth allocation can be
performed only in discrete units, as well as a bundle must begin and end on mechanism to
aggregate forwarding state, thus allowing the same pair number of
LSRs; and share some common characteristics or properties defined in
[OSPF-TE] and [ISIS-TE], i.e. they must have the same:

- Link Type (i.e. point-to-point or multi-access), required
labels to be reduced.

- TE Metric (i.e. GMPLS allows for a label to be suggested by an administrative cost),
- Set of Resource Classes upstream node to
reduce the setup latency. This suggestion may be overridden by a
downstream node but, in some cases, at each end the cost of higher LSP setup
time.

- GMPLS extends on the notion of restricting the links (i.e. colors).

Note range of labels
that an FA may also be selected by a component link. downstream node. In fact, a bundle can
consist of a mix of point-to-point links and FAs, but all sharing
some common properties.

6.2. Routing considerations GMPLS, an upstream
node may restrict the labels for bundling

A bundled link is just another kind of TE link such as those defined
by [GMPLS-ROUTING]. The liveness of an LSP along either a single hop or
along the bundled link entire LSP path. This feature is determined
by useful in photonic
networks where wavelength conversion may not be available.

- While traditional TE-based (and even LDP-based) LSPs are
unidirectional, GMPLS supports the liveness of each its component links, a bundled link is alive
when at least one establishment of its component links is alive. The liveness bi-directional
LSPs.

- GMPLS supports the termination of an LSP on a
component link can be determined by any of several means: IS-IS or
OSPF hellos over specific egress
port, i.e. the component link, or RSVP Hello (hop local), or
LMP hellos (link local), or from layer 1 or layer 2 indications.

Note that according to port selection at the destination side.

- GMPLS with RSVP-TE Tunnel specification the supports an RSVP
Hello specific mechanism is intended to for rapid
failure notification.

Note also some other key differences between MPLS-TE and GMPLS:

- For TDM, LSC and FSC interfaces, bandwidth allocation for an LSP
can be used when notification of link
layer failures performed only in discrete units.

- It is not available and unnumbered expected to have (much) fewer labels on TDM, LSC or FSC
links are not used, than on PSC or when the failure detection mechanisms provided by L2SC links, because the link layer former are not sufficient for timely node failure detection.

Once a bundled link physical
labels instead of logical labels.

4. Routing and addressing model

GMPLS is determined based on the IP routing and addressing models. This assumes
that IPv4 and/or IPv6 addresses are used to be alive, it can be advertised
as a TE link identify interfaces and the TE information can be flooded. If IS-IS/OSPF
hellos
that traditional (distributed) IP routing protocols are run over also reused.
Indeed, the component links, IS-IS/OSPF flooding can be
restricted to just one discovery of the component links.

Note that advertising a (bundled) TE link between a pair topology and the resource state of LSRs
doesn't imply that there is an IGP adjacency between these LSRs that
is associated with just that link. In fact, all
links in certain cases a TE
link between a pair of LSRs could be advertised even if there is no
IGP adjacency at all between the LSR (e.g. when the TE link routing domain is an
FA).

Forming a bundled link consist achieved via these routing protocols.

Since control and data planes are de-coupled in aggregating the identical TE
parameters of each individual component link GMPLS, control-plane
neighbors (i.e. IGP-learnt neighbors) may not be anymore data-plane
neighbors, hence mechanisms like LMP are needed to produce aggregated
TE parameters. A associate TE link as defined by [GMPLS-ROUTING] has many
parameters, adequate aggregation rules must be defined for each one.

Some parameters can be sums
links with neighboring nodes.

IP addresses are not used only to identify interfaces of component characteristics such as the
unreserved bandwidth IP hosts
and the maximum reservable bandwidth. Bandwidth
information is an important part of routers, but more generally to identify any PSC and non-PSC
interfaces. Similarly, IP routing protocols are used to find routes
for IP datagrams with a bundle advertisement SPF algorithm, and it
must be clearly defined since an abstraction is done. are also used to find
routes for non-PSC circuits by using a CSPF algorithm.

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 16
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March February 2003 13
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

A GMPLS node with bundled links must apply admission control on a
per-component link basis.

6.3. Signaling considerations

Typically, an LSP's explicit route (e.g. contained in an explicit
route TLV/Object) will choose

However, some additional mechanisms are needed to increase the bundled link
scalability of these models and to deal with specific traffic
engineering requirements of non-PSC layers. These mechanisms will be used for
introduced in the
LSP, but not following.

Re-using existing IP routing protocols allows for non-PSC layers to
take advantages of all the component link(s), valuable developments that took place
since information about the
bundled link is flooded, but information about years for IP routing, in particular in the component links
is not.

The choice context of the component link intra-
domain routing (link-state routing) and inter-domain routing (policy
routing).

In an overlay model, each particular non-PSC layer can be seen as a
set of Autonomous Systems (ASs) interconnected in an arbitrary way.
Similarly to use the traditional IP routing, each AS is always made managed by a
single administrative authority. For instance, an
upstream node. If the LSP AS can be an
SDH/SONET network operated by a given carrier. The set of
interconnected ASs being an SDH/SONET Internetwork.

Exchange of routing information between ASs can be done via an
inter-domain routing protocol like BGP-4. There is bidirectional, the upstream node
chooses obviously a component link huge
value of re-using well-known policy routing facilities provided by
BGP in each direction.

Three mechanisms a non-PSC context. Extensions for indicating this choice to BGP traffic engineering
(BGP-TE) in the downstream node context of non-PSC layers are possible.

6.3.1. Mechanism 1: Implicit Indication

This mechanism requires that left for further
study.

Each AS can be subdivided in different routing domains, and each component link has can
run a dedicated
signaling channel (e.g. the link different intra-domain routing protocol. In turn, each
routing-domain can be divided in areas.

A routing domain is made of GMPLS enabled nodes (i.e. a Sonet/SDH link using the DCC
for in-band signaling). The upstream node tells the receiver which
component link to use by sending the message over the chosen
component link's dedicated signaling channel. Note that this
signaling channel network
device including a GMPLS entity). These nodes can be in-band either edge
nodes (i.e. hosts, ingress LSRs or out-of-band. In this last case, egress LSRs), or internal LSRs.
An example of non-PSC host is an SDH/SONET Terminal Multiplexer
(TM). Another example is an SDH/SONET interface card within an IP
router or ATM switch.

Note that traffic engineering in the association between intra-domain requires the signaling channel use
of link-state routing protocols like OSPF or IS-IS.

GMPLS defines extensions to these protocols. These extensions are
needed to disseminate specific TDM, LSC and that component
link need FSC static and dynamic
characteristics related to be explicitly configured.

6.3.2. Mechanism 2: Explicit Indication by Numbered Interface ID

This mechanism requires that the component link has a unique remote
IP address. nodes and links. The upstream node indicates the choice of the component
link by including a new IF_ID RSVP_HOP object/IF_ID TLV carrying
either an current focus is on
intra-area traffic engineering. However, inter-area traffic
engineering is also under investigation.

4.1. Addressing of PSC and non-PSC layers

The fact that IPv4 or an and/or IPv6 address addresses are used doesn't imply at
all that they should be allocated in the Path/Label Request message
[RSVP-TE-GMPLS] [CR-LDP-GMPLS]. For a bi-directional LSP, a component
link is provided same addressing space than
public IPv4 and/or IPv6 addresses used for each direction by the upstream node.

This mechanism does not Internet. Private IP
addresses can be used if they don't require each component link to have its own
control channel. In fact, it doesn't even require be exchanged with any
other operator, public IP addresses are otherwise required. Of

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft February 2003 14
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

course, if an integrated model is used, two layers could share the whole
(bundled) link to have its own control channel.

6.3.3. Mechanism 3: Explicit Indication by Unnumbered Interface ID

With this mechanism, each component link
same addressing space.

Note that there is unnumbered is
assigned a unique Interface Identifier (32 bits value). The upstream
node indicates the choice benefit of using public IPv4 and/or IPv6
Internet addresses for non-PSC layers if an integrated model with
the component link by including a new
IF_ID RSVP_HOP object/IF_ID TLV IP layer is foreseen.

If we consider the scalability enhancements proposed in the Path/Label Request message
[RSVP-TE-GMPLS] [CR-LDP-GMPLS].

This object/TLV carries next
section, the component interface ID in IPv4 (32 bits) and the downstream
direction for a unidirectional LSP, IPv6 (128 bits) addressing
spaces are both more than sufficient to accommodate any non-PSC
layer. We can reasonably expect to have much less non-PSC devices
(e.g. SDH/SONET nodes) than we have today IP hosts and in addition routers.

4.2. GMPLS scalability enhancements

TDM, LSC and FSC layers introduce new constraints on the component
interface ID in IP
addressing and routing models since several hundreds of parallel
physical links (e.g. wavelengths) can now connect two nodes. Most of
the upstream direction for a bi-directional LSP.

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 17
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March 2002

The carriers already have today several tens of wavelengths per
fiber between two LSRs at nodes. New generation of DWDM systems will allow
several hundreds of wavelengths per fiber.

It becomes rather impractical to associate an IP address with each
end of the bundled each physical link, to represent each link exchange as a separate
routing adjacency, and to advertise and to maintain link states for
each of these
identifiers. Exchanging links. For that purpose, GMPLS enhances the identifiers may MPLS
routing and addressing models to increase their scalability.

Two optional mechanisms can be accomplished by
configuration, by means of a protocol such as LMP (preferred
solution), by means used to increase the scalability of RSVP/CR-LDP (especially in
the case where a
component addressing and the routing: unnumbered links and link is a Forwarding Adjacency), or by means of IS-IS or
OSPF extensions.

This mechanism does not bundling.
These two mechanisms can also be combined. They require each component link extensions
to have its own
control channel. In fact, it doesn't even require the whole
(bundled) link signaling (RSVP-TE and CR-LDP) and routing (OSPF-TE and IS-IS-TE)
protocols.

4.3. TE Extensions to have its own control channel.

6.4. Unnumbered Bundled Link

A bundled link may itself be numbered IP routing protocols

Traditionally, a TE link is advertised as an adjunct to a "regular"
OSPF or unnumbered independent of
whether IS-IS link, i.e., an adjacency is brought up on the component links are numbered or not. This affects how link,
and when the bundled link is advertised in IS-IS/OSPF, and up, both the format regular IGP properties of LSP
EROs that traverse the bundled link. Furthermore, unnumbered
Interface Identifiers for all unnumbered outgoing links of a given
LSR (whether component links, Forwarding Adjacencies or bundled
links) must be unique in link
(basically, the context SPF metric) and the TE properties of that LSR.

6.5. Forming bundled links

The generic rule for bundling component links is to place those
links that the link are correlated in some manner
then advertised.

However, GMPLS challenges this notion in the same bundle. If three ways:

- First, links that are non-PSC may yet have TE properties; however,
an OSPF adjacency could not be correlated based on multiple properties then the
bundling may be applied sequentially based brought up directly on these properties. For
instance, links may such links.

- Second, an LSP can be first grouped based on advertised as a point-to-point TE link in
the first property.
Each routing protocol, i.e. as a Forwarding Adjacency (FA); thus, an
advertised TE link need no longer be between two OSPF direct
neighbors. Forwarding Adjacencies (FA) are further described in a
separate section.

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft February 2003 15
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

- Third, a number of these groups links may be then divided into smaller groups based
on the second property advertised as a single TE link
(e.g. for improved scalability), so again, there is no longer a one-
to-one association of a regular adjacency and so on. The main principle followed in
this process a TE link.

Thus we have a more general notion of a TE link. A TE link is a
logical link that the properties has TE properties, some of the resulting bundles should
be concisely summarizable. Link bundling which may be done automatically
or by configuration. Automatic link bundling can apply bundling
rules sequentially to produce bundles.

For instance, the first property configured
on the advertising LSR, others which component links may be
correlated could obtained from other LSRs
by means of some protocol, and yet others which may be deduced from
the Interface Switching Capability [GMPLS-
ROUTING], component(s) of the second TE link.

An important TE property could be of a TE link is related to the Encoding [GMPLS-ROUTING], bandwidth
accounting for that link. GMPLS will define different accounting
rules for different non-PSC layers. Generic bandwidth attributes are
however defined by the third property could be TE routing extensions and by GMPLS, such as
the Administrative Weight (cost), unreserved bandwidth, the
fourth property could be maximum reservable bandwidth, the Resource Classes and finally links may
be correlated
maximum LSP bandwidth.

It is expected in a dynamic environment to have frequent changes of
bandwidth accounting information. A flexible policy for triggering
link state updates based on other metrics such as SRLG (Shared Risk Link
Groups).

When routing an alternate path for bandwidth thresholds and link-dampening
mechanism can be implemented.

TE properties associated with a link should also capture protection purposes, the general
principle followed
and restoration related characteristics. For instance, shared
protection can be elegantly combined with bundling. Protection and
restoration are mainly generic mechanisms also applicable to MPLS.
It is expected that they will first be developed for MPLS and later
on generalized to GMPLS.

A TE link between a pair of LSRs doesn't imply the alternate path is not routed over any existence of an
IGP adjacency between these LSRs. A TE link belonging to must also have some
means by which the advertising LSR can know of its liveness (e.g. by
using LMP hellos). When an SRLG LSR knows that some a TE link in is up, and can
determine the primary path belongs
to. Thus, TE link's TE properties, the rule to be followed is LSR may then advertise
that link to group its GMPLS enhanced OSPF or IS-IS neighbors using the TE
objects/TLVs. We call the interfaces over which GMPLS enhanced OSPF
or ISIS adjacencies are established "control channels".

5. Unnumbered links belonging

Unnumbered links (or interfaces) are links (or interfaces) that do
not have IP addresses. Using such links involves two capabilities:
the ability to
exactly specify unnumbered links in MPLS TE signaling, and
the same set of SRLGs.

This type ability to carry (TE) information about unnumbered links in IGP
TE extensions of sequential sub-division may result ISIS-TE and OSPF-TE.

A. The ability to specify unnumbered links in MPLS TE signaling
requires extensions to RSVP-TE and CR-LDP. The MPLS-TE signaling
doesn't provide support for unnumbered links, because it doesn�t
provide a number of
bundles between two adjacent nodes. In practice, however, the way to indicate an unnumbered link in its Explicit Route
Object/TLV and in its Record Route Object (there is no such TLV
for CR-LDP). GMPLS defines simple extensions to indicate an
unnumbered link
properties may not be very heterogeneous among component links
between two adjacent nodes. Thus, the number of bundles in practice
may not be large. these two Objects/TLVs, using a new Unnumbered
Interface ID sub-object/sub-TLV.

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 18
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March February 2003 16
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

7. Relationship with the UNI

The interface between

Since unnumbered links are not identified by an edge GMPLS node and a GMPLS LSR on IP address, then
for the
network side may be referred to as a User purpose of MPLS TE each end need some other identifier,
local to Network Interface
(UNI), while the interface between two network side LSRs may be
referred to as a Network to Network Interface (NNI).

GMPLS does not specify separately a UNI and an NNI. Edge nodes are
connected LSR to LSRs on which the network side, and these link belongs. LSRs are in turn
connected between them. Of course, at the behavior two end
points of an edge node is
not exactly unnumbered link exchange with each other the same as
identifiers they assign to the behavior of an LSR on link. Exchanging the network side.
Note also, that an edge node identifiers
may run be accomplished by configuration, by means of a routing protocol, however it
is expected that in most protocol such
as LMP ([LMP]), by means of RSVP/CR-LDP (especially in the cases it will not (see also section
7.2 and the section about signaling with an explicit route).

Conceptually, case
where a difference link is a Forwarding Adjacency, see below), or by means of
IS-IS or OSPF extensions ([ISIS-GMPLS], [OSPF-GMPLS]).

Consider an (unnumbered) link between UNI LSRs A and NNI make sense either if
both interface uses completely different protocols, or if they use B. LSR A chooses
an identifier for that link. So is LSR B. From A's perspective we
refer to the same protocols but with some outstanding differences. In identifier that A assigned to the
first case, separate protocols are often defined successively, with
more or less success.

The GMPLS approach consisted in building a consistent model from day
one, considering both link as the UNI "link
local identifier" (or just "local identifier"), and NNI interfaces at to the same time.
For
identifier that purpose a very few specific UNI particularities have been
ignored in a first time. GMPLS has been enhanced B assigned to support such
particularities at the UNI by some other standardization bodies (see
hereafter).

7.1. Relationship with link as the OIF UNI

This section is only given for reference to "link remote
identifier" (or just "remote identifier"). Likewise, from B's
perspective the OIF work related identifier that B assigned to
GMPLS. The current OIF UNI specification [OIF-UNI] defines an
interface between a client SDH/SONET equipment the link is the
local identifier, and an SDH/SONET
network, each belonging the identifier that A assigned to a distinct administrative authority. It the link
is designed for an overlay model. the remote identifier.

The OIF UNI defines additional
mechanisms on new Unnumbered Interface ID sub-object/sub-TLV for the top ER
Object/TLV contains the Router ID of GMPLS for the UNI.

For instance, LSR at the OIF service discovery procedure is a precursor to
obtaining UNI services. Service discovery allows a client upstream end
of the unnumbered link and the outgoing interface identifier or
the link local identifier with respect to
determine that upstream LSR.

The new Unnumbered Interface ID sub-object for the static parameters of RR Object
contains the interconnection outgoing interface identifier with respect to the
network, including LSR
that adds it in the UNI signaling protocol, RR Object.

B. The ability to carry (TE) information about unnumbered links in
IGP TE extensions requires new sub-TLVs for the type of
concatenation, extended IS
reachability TLV defined in ISIS-TE and for the transparency level as well TE LSA (which is
an opaque LSA) defined in OSPF-TE. A Link Local Identifier sub-TLV
and a Link Remote Identifier sub-TLV are defined.

5.1. Unnumbered Forwarding Adjacencies

If an LSR that originates an LSP advertises this LSP as an
unnumbered FA in IS-IS or OSPF, or the type LSR uses this FA as an
unnumbered component link of
diversity (node, a bundled link, SRLG) supported by the network.

Since LSR must allocate
an Interface ID to that FA. If the current OIF UNI interface does not cover photonic
networks, G.709 Digital Wrapper, etc, it LSP is from that perspective a
subset of bi-directional, the GMPLS Architecture at tail
end does the UNI.

7.2. Reachability across same and allocates an Interface ID to the UNI

This section discusses reverse FA.

Signaling has been enhanced to carry the selection Interface ID of an explicit route by an edge
node. The selection a FA in the
new LSP Tunnel Interface ID object/TLV. This object/TLV contains the
Router ID of the first LSR by an edge node connected to
multiple LSRs that generates it, and the Interface ID. It is
called the Forward Interface ID when it appears in a Path/REQUEST
message, and it is part of that problem. called the Reverse Interface ID when it appears
in the Resv/MAPPING message.

6. Link bundling

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 19
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March February 2003 17
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

An edge node (host or LSR) can participate more or less deeply

The concept of link bundling is essential in certain networks
employing the GMPLS routing. Four different routing models can be supported at
the UNI: configuration based, partial peering, silent listening and
full peering.

- Configuration based: control plane as is defined in [BUNDLE]. A
typical example is an optical meshed network where adjacent optical
cross-connects (LSRs) are connected by several hundreds of parallel
wavelengths. In this routing model requires network, consider the manual or
automatic configuration application of an edge node link state
routing protocols, like OSPF or IS-IS, with suitable extensions for
resource discovery and dynamic route computation. Each wavelength
must be advertised separately in order to be used, except if link
bundling is used.

When a list pair of neighbor LSRs
sorted is connected by preference order. Automatic configuration can be achieved
using DHCP for instance. No routing information multiple links, it is exchanged at the
UNI, except maybe the ordered list possible
to advertise several (or all) of LSRs. these links as a single link into
OSPF and/or IS-IS. This process is called link bundling, or just
bundling. The only routing
information used resulting logical link is called a bundled link as its
physical links are called component links (and are identified by the edge node
interface indexes).

It results that a combination of three identifiers ((bundled) link
identifier, component link identifier, label) is that list. The edge node sends
by default an LSP request sufficient to
unambiguously identify the preferred LSR. ICMP redirects could
be send appropriate resources used by this LSR to redirect some LSP requests to another LSR
connected an LSP.

The purpose of link bundling is to the edge node. GMPLS does not preclude that model.

- Partial peering: limited improve routing information (mainly reachability)
can be exchanged across the UNI using some extensions in scalability by
reducing the
signaling plane. The reachability amount of information exchanged at the UNI
may be used that has to initiate edge node specific routing decision over the
network. GMPLS does not have be handled by OSPF
and/or IS-IS. This reduction is accomplished by performing
information aggregation/abstraction. As with any capability to support this model
today.

- Silent listening: the edge node can silently listen to routing
protocols and take routing decisions based on the other information
obtained. An edge node receives the full routing information,
including traffic engineering extensions. One LSR should forward
transparently all routing pdus to the edge node. An edge node can
now compute a complete explicit route taking into consideration all
the end-to-end routing information. GMPLS does not preclude
aggregation/abstraction, this
model.

- Full peering: In addition to silent listening, results in losing some of the edge node
participates within
information. To limit the routing, establish adjacencies with its
neighbors and advertises LSAs. This is useful only if there are
benefits for edge nodes amount of losses one need to advertise themselves traffic engineering
information. GMPLS does not preclude this model.

8. Link Management

In restrict the context
type of GMPLS, the information that can be aggregated/abstracted.

6.1. Restrictions on bundling

The following restrictions are required for bundling links. All
component links in a bundle must begin and end on the same pair of nodes (e.g., a photonic switch)
may be connected by tens of fibers,
LSRs; and share some common characteristics or properties defined in
[OSPF-TE] and [ISIS-TE], i.e. they must have the same:

- Link Type (i.e. point-to-point or multi-access),
- TE Metric (i.e. an administrative cost),
- Set of Resource Classes at each fiber may be used to
transmit hundreds end of wavelengths if DWDM is used. Multiple fibers
and/or multiple wavelengths the links (i.e. colors).

Note that an FA may also be combined into one or more
bundled a component link. In fact, a bundle can
consist of a mix of point-to-point links for routing purposes. Furthermore, to enable
communication between nodes for routing, signaling, and FAs, but all sharing
some common properties.

6.2. Routing considerations for bundling

A bundled link
management, control channels must be established between a node
pair.

Link management is a collection just another kind of useful procedures between
adjacent nodes that provide local services TE link such as control channel
management, those defined
by [GMPLS-ROUTING]. The liveness of the bundled link connectivity verification, is determined
by the liveness of each its component links, a bundled link property
correlation, and fault management. is alive
when at least one of its component links is alive. The Link Management Protocol
(LMP) has been defined to fulfill these operations. liveness of a
component link can be determined by any of several means: IS-IS or
OSPF hellos over the component link, or RSVP Hello (hop local), or
LMP was hellos (link local), or from layer 1 or layer 2 indications.

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 20
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March February 2003 18
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

initiated in

Note that according to the context of GMPLS but RSVP-TE Tunnel specification the RSVP
Hello mechanism is a generic toolbox that can intended to be also used in other contexts.

Control channel management and link property correlation are
mandatory procedures when notification of LMP. Link connectivity verification link
layer failures is not available and
fault management unnumbered links are optional procedures.

8.1. Control channel and control channel management

LMP control channel management not used,
or when the failure detection mechanisms provided by the link layer
are not sufficient for timely node failure detection.

Once a bundled link is used determined to establish be alive, it can be advertised
as a TE link and maintain
control channels between nodes. Control channels exist independently
of the TE information can be flooded. If IS-IS/OSPF
hellos are run over the component links, and IS-IS/OSPF flooding can be used
restricted to exchange MPLS control-plane
information such as signaling, routing, and just one of the component links.

Note that advertising a (bundled) TE link management
information.

An "LMP adjacency" between a pair of LSRs
doesn't imply that there is formed an IGP adjacency between two nodes these LSRs that support the same
LMP capabilities. Multiple control channels may
is associated with just that link. In fact, in certain cases a TE
link between a pair of LSRs could be active
simultaneously for advertised even if there is no
IGP adjacency at all between the LSR (e.g. when the TE link is an
FA).

Forming a bundled link consist in aggregating the identical TE
parameters of each adjacency. individual component link to produce aggregated
TE parameters. A control channel can TE link as defined by [GMPLS-ROUTING] has many
parameters, adequate aggregation rules must be either
explicitly configured or automatically selected, however, LMP
currently assume that control channels are explicitly configured
while the configuration of the control channel capabilities defined for each one.

Some parameters can be
dynamically negotiated.

For the purposes sums of LMP, component characteristics such as the exact implementation of
unreserved bandwidth and the control
channel maximum reservable bandwidth. Bandwidth
information is left unspecified. The control channel(s) between two
adjacent nodes an important part of a bundle advertisement and it
must be clearly defined since an abstraction is no longer required to use the same physical medium
as the data-bearing done.

A GMPLS node with bundled links between those nodes. For example, a must apply admission control channel could use on a separate wavelength or fiber,
per-component link basis.

6.3. Signaling considerations

Typically, an
Ethernet link, or LSP's explicit route (e.g. contained in an IP tunnel through a separate management
network.

A consequence of allowing explicit
route TLV/Object) will choose the control channel(s) between two nodes bundled link to be physically diverse from used for the associated data-bearing links
LSP, but not the component link(s), since information about the
bundled link is
that flooded, but information about the health component links
is not.

The choice of a control channel does not necessarily correlate
to the health of component link to use is always made by an
upstream node. If the data-bearing links, and vice-versa. Therefore,
new mechanisms have been developed LSP is bidirectional, the upstream node
chooses a component link in LMP each direction.

Three mechanisms for indicating this choice to manage links, both in
terms of link provisioning and fault isolation.

LMP does not specify the signaling transport downstream node
are possible.

6.3.1. Mechanism 1: Implicit Indication

This mechanism used in the
control channel, however it states requires that messages transported over each component link has a
control dedicated
signaling channel must be IP encoded. Furthermore, since the messages
are IP encoded, (e.g. the link level encoding is not part of LMP. A 32-bit
non-zero integer control channel identifier (CCId) is assigned to
each direction of a control channel.

Each control channel individually negotiates its control channel
parameters and maintains connectivity Sonet/SDH link using a fast Hello protocol. the DCC
for in-band signaling). The latter is required if lower-level mechanisms are not available
to detect upstream node tells the receiver which
component link failures.

The Hello protocol of LMP is intended to be a lightweight keep-alive
mechanism use by sending the message over the chosen
component link's dedicated signaling channel. Note that will react to control this
signaling channel failures rapidly so
that IGP Hellos are not lost and the associated link-state
adjacencies are not removed unnecessarily. can be in-band or out-of-band. In this last case,

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 21
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March February 2003 19
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

The Hello protocol consists of two phases: a negotiation phase

the association between the signaling channel and a
keep-alive phase. The negotiation phase allows negotiation of some
basic Hello protocol parameters, like that component
link need to be explicitly configured.

6.3.2. Mechanism 2: Explicit Indication by Numbered Interface ID

This mechanism requires that the Hello frequency. component link has a unique remote
IP address. The keep-
alive phase consists upstream node indicates the choice of the component
link by including a fast lightweight bi-directional Hello new IF_ID RSVP_HOP object/IF_ID TLV carrying
either an IPv4 or an IPv6 address in the Path/Label Request message exchange.

If
[RSVP-TE-GMPLS] [CR-LDP-GMPLS]. For a group of control channels share bi-directional LSP, a common node pair and support
component link is provided for each direction by the same LMP capabilities, then LMP upstream node.

This mechanism does not require each component link to have its own
control channel messages (except
Configuration messages, and Hello) may be transmitted over any of channel. In fact, it doesn't even require the active whole
(bundled) link to have its own control channels without coordination between the local
and remote nodes.

For LMP, it is essential channel.

6.3.3. Mechanism 3: Explicit Indication by Unnumbered Interface ID

With this mechanism, each component link that at least one control channel is always
available. In unnumbered is
assigned a unique Interface Identifier (32 bits value). The upstream
node indicates the event choice of the component link by including a control channel failure, it new
IF_ID RSVP_HOP object/IF_ID TLV in the Path/Label Request message
[RSVP-TE-GMPLS] [CR-LDP-GMPLS].

This object/TLV carries the component interface ID in the downstream
direction for a unidirectional LSP, and in addition the component
interface ID in the upstream direction for a bi-directional LSP.

The two LSRs at each end of the bundled link exchange these
identifiers. Exchanging the identifiers may be
possible to use an alternate active control channel without
coordination.

8.2. Link property correlation

As part accomplished by
configuration, by means of LMP, a protocol such as LMP (preferred
solution), by means of RSVP/CR-LDP (especially in the case where a
component link property correlation exchange is defined.
The exchange is used to aggregate multiple data-bearing links (i.e.
component links) into a bundled link and exchange, correlate, Forwarding Adjacency), or
change TE by means of IS-IS or
OSPF extensions.

This mechanism does not require each component link parameters. The to have its own
control channel. In fact, it doesn't even require the whole
(bundled) link to have its own control channel.

6.4. Unnumbered Bundled Link

A bundled link property correlation exchange may itself be done at any time a numbered or unnumbered independent of
whether the component links are numbered or not. This affects how
the bundled link is up and not advertised in IS-IS/OSPF, and the Verification
process (see next section).

It allows format of LSP
EROs that traverse the bundled link. Furthermore, unnumbered
Interface Identifiers for instance to add component all unnumbered outgoing links to a link bundle,
change of a link's protection mechanism, change port identifiers, or
change given
LSR (whether component identifiers links, Forwarding Adjacencies or bundled
links) must be unique in a bundle. This mechanism is
supported by an exchange the context of link summary messages.

8.3. Link connectivity verification

Link connectivity verification that LSR.

6.5. Forming bundled links

The generic rule for bundling component links is an optional procedure to place those
links that are correlated in some manner in the same bundle. If
links may be correlated based on multiple properties then the

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft February 2003 20
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

bundling may be applied sequentially based on these properties. For
instance, links may be
used to verify first grouped based on the physical connectivity first property.
Each of data-bearing links as
well as to exchange the link identifiers that are used in these groups may be then divided into smaller groups based
on the GMPLS
signaling. second property and so on. The use of main principle followed in
this procedure process is negotiated as part of the configuration
exchange that take place during the negotiation phase properties of the Hello
protocol. This procedure resulting bundles should
be concisely summarizable. Link bundling may be done initially when a data-
bearing automatically
or by configuration. Automatic link is bundling can apply bundling
rules sequentially to produce bundles.

For instance, the first established, and subsequently, property on a periodic
basis for all unallocated (free) data-bearing links.

The verification procedure consists of sending Test messages in-band
over which component links may be
correlated could be the data-bearing links. This requires that Interface Switching Capability [GMPLS-
ROUTING], the unallocated
links must second property could be opaque; however, multiple degrees of opaqueness (e.g.,
examining overhead bytes, terminating the payload, etc.), and hence
different mechanisms to transport Encoding [GMPLS-ROUTING],
the Test messages, are specified.
Note that third property could be the Test message is Administrative Weight (cost), the only LMP message that is
transmitted over
fourth property could be the link, Resource Classes and that Hello messages continue to finally links may
be
exchanged over correlated based on other metrics such as SRLG (Shared Risk Link
Groups).

When routing an alternate path for protection purposes, the control channel during general
principle followed is that the alternate path is not routed over any
link belonging to an SRLG that some link verification
process. Data-bearing links are tested in the transmit direction as

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 22
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March 2002

they are unidirectional. As such, it primary path belongs
to. Thus, the rule to be followed is possible for LMP neighboring
nodes to exchange group links belonging to
exactly the Test messages simultaneously same set of SRLGs.

This type of sequential sub-division may result in both
directions.

To initiate the link verification procedure, a node must first
notify the number of
bundles between two adjacent node that it will begin sending Test messages
over a particular data-bearing link, or over nodes. In practice, however, the link
properties may not be very heterogeneous among component links
between two adjacent nodes. Thus, the number of
a particular bundled link. bundles in practice
may not be large.

7. Relationship with the UNI

The interface between an edge GMPLS node must also indicate and a GMPLS LSR on the number of
data-bearing links that are
network side may be referred to as a User to Network Interface
(UNI), while the interface between two network side LSRs may be verified;
referred to as a Network to Network Interface (NNI).

GMPLS does not specify separately a UNI and an NNI. Edge nodes are
connected to LSRs on the interval at which network side, and these LSRs are in turn
connected between them. Of course, the test messages will be sent; behavior of an edge node is
not exactly the encoding scheme, same as the transport
mechanism behavior of an LSR on the network side.
Note also, that an edge node may run a routing protocol, however it
is expected that are supported, data rate for Test messages; and, in most of the case where the data-bearing links correspond to fibers, the
wavelength over which the Test messages cases it will be transmitted.
Furthermore, not (see also section
7.2 and the local section about signaling with an explicit route).

Conceptually, a difference between UNI and remote bundled link identifiers are
transmitted at this time to perform NNI make sense either if
both interface uses completely different protocols, or if they use
the component link association same protocols but with some outstanding differences. In the bundled link identifiers.

8.4. Fault management

Fault management is an important requirement
first case, separate protocols are often defined successively, with
more or less success.

The GMPLS approach consisted in building a consistent model from day
one, considering both the operational
point of view. Fault management includes usually: fault detection,
fault localization and fault notification. When a failure occurs and
is detected (fault detection), an operator needs to know exactly
where it happened (fault localization) UNI and NNI interfaces at the same time.
For that purpose a source node may need to
be notified very few specific UNI particularities have been
ignored in order to take some actions (fault notification).

Note that fault localization can also be used a first time. GMPLS has been enhanced to support some
specific local protection/restoration mechanisms.

In new technologies such as transparent photonic switching currently
no method

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft February 2003 21
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

particularities at the UNI by some other standardization bodies (see
hereafter).

7.1. Relationship with the OIF UNI

This section is defined only given for reference to locate the OIF work related to
GMPLS. The current OIF UNI specification [OIF-UNI] defines an
interface between a fault, client SDH/SONET equipment and the mechanism by which
the fault information an SDH/SONET
network, each belonging to a distinct administrative authority. It
is propagated must be sent "out designed for an overlay model. The OIF UNI defines additional
mechanisms on the top of band" (via GMPLS for the control plane).

LMP provides a fault localization UNI.

For instance, the OIF service discovery procedure that can be used to
rapidly localize link failures, by notifying is a fault up precursor to the node
upstream of that fault (i.e. through
obtaining UNI services. Service discovery allows a fault notification
procedure).

A downstream LMP neighbor that detects data link failures will send
an LMP message client to its upstream neighbor notifying it of
determine the failure.
When an upstream node receives a failure notification, it can
correlate static parameters of the failure interconnection with the corresponding input ports to
determine if
network, including the failure is between UNI signaling protocol, the two nodes. Once type of
concatenation, the failure
has been localized, transparency level as well as the signaling protocols can be used to initiate
link or path protection/restoration procedures.

8.5 LMP for DWDM Optical Line Systems (OLSs)

In an all-optical environment, LMP focuses on peer communications
(e.g. OXC-to-OXC). A great deal type of information about a link between
two OXCs
diversity (node, link, SRLG) supported by the network.

Since the current OIF UNI interface does not cover photonic
networks, G.709 Digital Wrapper, etc, it is known from that perspective a
subset of the GMPLS Architecture at the UNI.

7.2. Reachability across the UNI

This section discusses the selection of an explicit route by an edge
node. The selection of the OLS (Optical Line System or WDM Terminal
multiplexer). Exposing this information first LSR by an edge node connected to
multiple LSRs is part of that problem.

An edge node (host or LSR) can participate more or less deeply in
the control plane GMPLS routing. Four different routing models can
improve network usability by further reducing required manual

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 23
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March 2002 be supported at
the UNI: configuration based, partial peering, silent listening and also by greatly enhancing fault detection and
recovery.

LMP-WDM [LMP-WDM] defines extensions to LMP for use between and OXC
and an OLS. These extensions are intended to satisfy
full peering.

- Configuration based: this routing model requires the Optical Link
Interface Requirements described in [OLI-REQ].

Fault detection is particularly manual or
automatic configuration of an issue when the network is using
all-optical photonic switches (PXC). Once edge node with a connection list of neighbor LSRs
sorted by preference order. Automatic configuration can be achieved
using DHCP for instance. No routing information is
established, PXCs have only limited visibility into exchanged at the health of
UNI, except maybe the
connection. Even though ordered list of LSRs. The only routing
information used by the PXC edge node is all-optical, long-haul OLSs
typically terminate channels electrically and regenerate them
optically, which presents that list. The edge node sends
by default an opportunity LSP request to monitor the health of a
channel between PXCs. LMP-WDM can then preferred LSR. ICMP redirects could
be used send by the OLS to provide this information LSR to the PXC.

In addition redirect some LSP requests to the link information known another LSR
connected to the OLS edge node. GMPLS does not preclude that is
exchanged through LMP-WDM, some model.

- Partial peering: limited routing information known to the OXC may also (mainly reachability)
can be exchanged with the OLS through LMP-WDM. This information is useful
for alarm management and link monitoring (e.g. trace monitoring).
Alarm management is important because across the administrative state of a
connection, known to UNI using some extensions in the OXC (e.g. this
signaling plane. The reachability information exchanged at the UNI
may be learned
through used to initiate edge node specific routing decision over the Admin Status object of
network. GMPLS signaling [GMPLS]), can be
used does not have any capability to suppress spurious alarms. For example, support this model
today.

- Silent listening: the OXC may know that
a connection is "up", "down", in a "testing" mode, or being deleted
("deletion-in-progress"). The OXC edge node can use this silently listen to routing
protocols and take routing decisions based on the information
obtained. An edge node receives the full routing information,

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft February 2003 22
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

including traffic engineering extensions. One LSR should forward
transparently all routing pdus to inhibit
alarm reporting from the OLS when edge node. An edge node can
now compute a connection is "down", "testing",
or being deleted.

It is important complete explicit route taking into consideration all
the end-to-end routing information. GMPLS does not preclude this
model.

- Full peering: In addition to note that an OXC may peer with one or more OLSs
and an OLS may peer silent listening, the edge node
participates within the routing, establish adjacencies with one or more OXCs. Although there are many
similarities between an OXC-OXC LMP session and an OXC-OLS LMP
session, particularly for control management its
neighbors and link verification, advertises LSAs. This is useful only if there are some differences as well. These differences can primarily
be attributed
benefits for edge nodes to advertise themselves traffic engineering
information. GMPLS does not preclude this model.

8. Link Management

In the nature context of an OXC-OLS link, and the purpose GMPLS, a pair of
OXC-OLS LMP sessions. The OXC-OXC links can nodes (e.g., a photonic switch)
may be connected by tens of fibers, and each fiber may be used to provide the
basis
transmit hundreds of wavelengths if DWDM is used. Multiple fibers
and/or multiple wavelengths may also be combined into one or more
bundled links for GMPLS signaling and routing at the optical layer. The
information exchanged over LMP-WDM sessions is used purposes. Furthermore, to augment
knowledge about the links enable
communication between OXCs.

In order nodes for the information exchanged over the OXC-OLS LMP sessions
to be used by the OXC-OXC session, the information must be
coordinated by the OXC. However, the OXC-OXC and OXC-OLS LMP sessions
are run independently routing, signaling, and link
management, control channels must be maintained separately. One critical
requirement when running an OXC-OLS LMP session is the ability of the
OLS to make established between a data link transparent when not doing the verification
procedure. This node
pair.

Link management is because the same data link may be verified a collection of useful procedures between
OXC-OLS
adjacent nodes that provide local services such as control channel
management, link connectivity verification, link property
correlation, and between OXC-OXC. fault management. The verification procedure of LMP is
used Link Management Protocol
(LMP) has been defined to coordinate the Test procedure (and hence fulfill these operations. LMP was
initiated in the
transparency/opaqueness context of the data links). To maintain independence
between the sessions, it must GMPLS but is a generic toolbox that can
be possible for the LMP sessions to
come up also used in any order. In particular, it must be possible for an OXC-
OXC LMP session to come up without an OXC-OLS LMP session being
brought up, other contexts.

Control channel management and vice-versa.

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 24
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March 2002

9. Generalized Signaling

The GMPLS signaling extends certain base functions link property correlation are
mandatory procedures of the RSVP-TE
and CR-LDP signaling and, in some cases, adds functionality. These
changes LMP. Link connectivity verification and additions impact basic LSP properties, how labels
fault management are
requested optional procedures.

8.1. Control channel and communicated, the unidirectional nature control channel management

LMP control channel management is used to establish and maintain
control channels between nodes. Control channels exist independently
of LSPs, how
errors are propagated, TE links, and can be used to exchange MPLS control-plane
information provided for synchronizing
the ingress such as signaling, routing, and egress.

The core GMPLS signaling specification link management
information.

An "LMP adjacency" is available in three parts:

1. A signaling functional description [GMPLS-SIG].
2. RSVP-TE extensions [RSVP-TE-GMPLS].
3. CR-LDP extensions [CR-LDP-GMPLS].

In addition, independent parts are available per technology:

1. GMPLS extensions for SONET and SDH formed between two nodes that support the same
LMP capabilities. Multiple control [SONETSDH-GMPLS].
2. GMPLS extensions channels may be active
simultaneously for G.709 each adjacency. A control [G709-GMPLS].

The following MPLS profile expressed in terms of MPLS features
[RFC3031] applies to GMPLS:

- Downstream-on-demand label allocation and distribution.
- Ingress initiated ordered control.
- Liberal (typical), or conservative (could) label retention
mode.
- Request, traffic/data, or topology driven label allocation
strategy.
- Explicit routing (typical), channel can be either
explicitly configured or hop-by-hop routing.

The GMPLS signaling defines the following new building blocks on automatically selected, however, LMP
currently assume that control channels are explicitly configured
while the
top configuration of MPLS-TE:

For the purposes
(e.g. latency).
5. Label restriction by of LMP, the upstream to support some optical
constraints.
6. Bi-directional LSP establishment with contention
resolution.
7. Rapid failure notification extensions.
8. Protection information currently focusing on link protection,
plus primary and secondary LSP indication.
9. Explicit routing with explicit label control for a fine
degree exact implementation of control.
10. Specific traffic parameters per technology.
11. LSP administrative status handling. the control
channel is left unspecified. The control channel(s) between two
adjacent nodes is no longer required to use the same physical medium

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 25
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March February 2003 23
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

These building blocks will be described in mode details in

as the
following. data-bearing links between those nodes. For example, a
control channel could use a separate wavelength or fiber, an
Ethernet link, or an IP tunnel through a separate management
network.

A complete specification can consequence of allowing the control channel(s) between two nodes
to be found in physically diverse from the
corresponding documents.

Note that GMPLS associated data-bearing links is highly generic and has many options. Only
building blocks 1, 2
that the health of a control channel does not necessarily correlate
to the health of the data-bearing links, and 10 are mandatory, vice-versa. Therefore,
new mechanisms have been developed in LMP to manage links, both in
terms of link provisioning and only within fault isolation.

LMP does not specify the
specific format signaling transport mechanism used in the
control channel, however it states that is needed. Typically building blocks 6 and 9
should messages transported over a
control channel must be implemented. Building blocks 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 11 are
optional.

A typical SDH/SONET switching network would implement building
blocks: 1, 2 (the SDH/SONET label), 6, 9, 10 and 11. Building blocks
7 and 8 are optional IP encoded. Furthermore, since the protection/restoration can be
achieved using SDH/SONET overhead bytes.

A typical wavelength switching network would implement building
blocks: 1, 2 (the generic format), 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11. Building
block 3 is only needed in messages
are IP encoded, the particular case link level encoding is not part of waveband switching. LMP. A typical fiber switching network would implement building blocks:
1, 2 (the generic format), 6, 7, 8, 9 32-bit
non-zero integer control channel identifier (CCId) is assigned to
each direction of a control channel.

Each control channel individually negotiates its control channel
parameters and 11.

A typical MPLS-IP network would maintains connectivity using a fast Hello protocol.
The latter is required if lower-level mechanisms are not implement any of these building
blocks, since the absence available
to detect link failures.

The Hello protocol of building block 1 would indicate regular
MPLS-IP. Note however that building block 1 and 8 can LMP is intended to be used a lightweight keep-alive
mechanism that will react to
signal MPLS-IP as well. In control channel failures rapidly so
that case, the MPLS-IP network can
benefit from IGP Hellos are not lost and the link protection type (not available in CR-LDP, associated link-state
adjacencies are not removed unnecessarily.

The Hello protocol consists of two phases: a negotiation phase and a
keep-alive phase. The negotiation phase allows negotiation of some
very
basic form being available in RSVP-TE). Building block 2 is
here Hello protocol parameters, like the Hello frequency. The keep-
alive phase consists of a regular MPLS label fast lightweight bi-directional Hello
message exchange.

If a group of control channels share a common node pair and no new label format is required.

GMPLS does not specify support
the same LMP capabilities, then LMP control channel messages (except
Configuration messages, and Hello) may be transmitted over any profile for RSVP-TE of
the active control channels without coordination between the local
and CR-LDP
implementations remote nodes.

For LMP, it is essential that have at least one control channel is always
available. In the event of a control channel failure, it may be
possible to support GMPLS - except for what use an alternate active control channel without
coordination.

8.2. Link property correlation

As part of LMP, a link property correlation exchange is
directly related to GMPLS procedures. It defined.
The exchange is used to the manufacturer to
decide which are the optional elements and procedures of RSVP-TE aggregate multiple data-bearing links (i.e.
component links) into a bundled link and
CR-LDP that need to be implemented. Some optional MPLS-TE elements
can exchange, correlate, or
change TE link parameters. The link property correlation exchange
may be useful for TDM, LSC done at any time a link is up and FSC layers, not in the Verification
process (see next section).

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft February 2003 24
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

It allows for instance the setup
and holding priorities that are inherited from MPLS-TE.

9.1. Overview: How to Request an LSP

A TDM, LSC add component links to a link bundle,
change a link's protection mechanism, change port identifiers, or FSC LSP is established by sending
change component identifiers in a PATH/Label Request
message downstream to the destination. bundle. This message contains a
Generalized Label Request with the type of LSP (i.e. the layer
concerned), and its payload type. An Explicit Route (ERO) mechanism is also
normally added to the message, but this can be added and/or
completed
supported by the first/default LSR.

The requested bandwidth an exchange of link summary messages.

8.3. Link connectivity verification

Link connectivity verification is encoded in an optional procedure that may be
used to verify the RSVP-TE SENDER_TSPEC
object, or in physical connectivity of data-bearing links as
well as to exchange the CR-LDP Traffic Parameters TLV. Specific parameters
for a given technology link identifiers that are given used in these traffic parameters, such the GMPLS
signaling.

The use of this procedure is negotiated as part of the type configuration
exchange that take place during the negotiation phase of signal, concatenation and/or transparency for a
SDH/SONET LSP. For some other technology there be could just one
bandwidth parameter indicating the bandwidth as Hello
protocol. This procedure should be done initially when a floating-point
value.

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 26
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March 2002

The requested local protection per data-
bearing link may be requested using the
Protection Information Object/TLV. The end-to-end LSP protection is
for further study first established, and is introduced LSP protection/restoration
section (see after).

If the LSP is subsequently, on a bi-directional LSP, an Upstream Label is also
specified in periodic
basis for all unallocated (free) data-bearing links.

The verification procedure consists of sending Test messages in-band
over the Path/Label Request message. data-bearing links. This label will requires that the unallocated
links must be opaque; however, multiple degrees of opaqueness (e.g.,
examining overhead bytes, terminating the
one payload, etc.), and hence
different mechanisms to use in transport the upstream direction.

Additionally, a Suggested Label, a Label Set Test messages, are specified.
Note that the Test message is the only LMP message that is
transmitted over the link, and a Waveband Label
can also that Hello messages continue to be included
exchanged over the control channel during the link verification
process. Data-bearing links are tested in the message. Other operations transmit direction as
they are defined unidirectional. As such, it is possible for LMP neighboring
nodes to exchange the Test messages simultaneously in
MPLS-TE.

The downstream node will send back both
directions.

To initiate the link verification procedure, a Resv/Label Mapping message
including one Generalized Label object/TLV node must first
notify the adjacent node that can contain several
Generalized Labels. For instance, if a concatenated SDH/SONET signal
is requested, several labels can be returned.

In case of SDH/SONET virtual concatenation, it will begin sending Test messages
over a list of labels is
returned. Each label identifying one element of particular data-bearing link, or over the virtual
concatenated signal. This limits virtual concatenation to remain
within component links of
a single (component) particular bundled link.

In case of any type of SDH/SONET contiguous concatenation, only one
label is returned. That label is The node must also indicate the lowest signal number of
data-bearing links that are to be verified; the contiguous
concatenated signal (given an order specified interval at which
the test messages will be sent; the encoding scheme, the transport
mechanism that are supported, data rate for Test messages; and, in [SONETSDH-GMPLS]).

In
the case of SDH/SONET "multiplication", i.e. co-routing of circuits
of where the same type but without concatenation but all belonging data-bearing links correspond to fibers, the
same LSP,
wavelength over which the explicit ordered list of all signals that take part in Test messages will be transmitted.
Furthermore, the LSP local and remote bundled link identifiers are
transmitted at this time to perform the component link association
with the bundled link identifiers.

8.4. Fault management

Fault management is returned.

9.2. Generalized Label Request

The Generalized Label Request an important requirement from the operational
point of view. Fault management includes usually: fault detection,
fault localization and fault notification. When a failure occurs and
is detected (fault detection), an operator needs to know exactly
where it happened (fault localization) and a new object/TLV source node may need to
be added in an
RSVP-TE Path message instead of the regular Label Request, or in a
CR-LDP Request message notified in addition order to the already existing TLVs.
Only one label request take some actions (fault notification).

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft February 2003 25
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

Note that fault localization can also be used per message, so a single LSP can
be requested at a time per signaling message.

The Generalized Label Request gives three major characteristics
(parameters) required to support some
specific local protection/restoration mechanisms.

In new technologies such as transparent photonic switching currently
no method is defined to locate a fault, and the LSP being requested: the LSP
Encoding Type, mechanism by which
the Switching Type that fault information is propagated must be used and the LSP
payload type called Generalized PID (G-PID).

The LSP Encoding Type indicates sent "out of band" (via
the encoding type control plane).

LMP provides a fault localization procedure that will can be used
with to
rapidly localize link failures, by notifying a fault up to the node
upstream of that fault (i.e. through a fault notification
procedure).

A downstream LMP neighbor that detects data associated with the LSP, i.e. the type link failures will send
an LMP message to its upstream neighbor notifying it of technology
being considered. For instance, the failure.
When an upstream node receives a failure notification, it can be SDH, SONET, Ethernet, ANSI
PDH, etc. It represents
correlate the nature of failure with the LSP, and not corresponding input ports to
determine if the failure is between the nature of two nodes. Once the links that failure
has been localized, the LSP traverses. This is signaling protocols can be used hop-by-hop by each
node.

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 27
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March 2002

A to initiate
link may support a set or path protection/restoration procedures.

8.5 LMP for DWDM Optical Line Systems (OLSs)

In an all-optical environment, LMP focuses on peer communications
(e.g. OXC-to-OXC). A great deal of encoding formats, where support means
that information about a link between
two OXCs is able to carry and switch a signal of one or more of
these encoding formats. The Switching Type indicates then known by the type
of switching that should be performed on a particular link for that
LSP. This OLS (Optical Line System or WDM Terminal
multiplexer). Exposing this information is needed to the control plane can
improve network usability by further reducing required manual
configuration and also by greatly enhancing fault detection and
recovery.

LMP-WDM [LMP-WDM] defines extensions to LMP for links that advertise more than
one type of switching capability.

Nodes must verify that use between and OXC
and an OLS. These extensions are intended to satisfy the type indicated Optical
Link Interface Requirements described in the Switching Type [OLI-REQ].

Fault detection is
supported on the corresponding incoming interface; otherwise particularly an issue when the node
must generate a notification message with network is using
all-optical photonic switches (PXC). Once a "Routing
problem/Switching Type" indication.

The LSP payload type (G-PID) identifies connection is
established, PXCs have only limited visibility into the payload carried by health of
the
LSP, i.e. connection. Even though the PXC is all-optical, long-haul OLSs
typically terminate channels electrically and regenerate them
optically, which presents an identifier of opportunity to monitor the client layer health of that LSP. For some
technologies it also indicates the mapping a
channel between PXCs. LMP-WDM can then be used by the client layer,
e.g. byte synchronous mapping of E1. This must be interpreted
according OLS to provide
this information to the LSP encoding type of PXC.

In addition to the LSP and link information known to the OLS that is used by
exchanged through LMP-WDM, some information known to the
nodes at OXC may
also be exchanged with the endpoints OLS through LMP-WDM. This information is
useful for alarm management and link monitoring (e.g. trace
monitoring). Alarm management is important because the
administrative state of a connection, known to the LSP OXC (e.g. this
information may be learned through the Admin Status object of GMPLS
signaling [GMPLS]), can be used to suppress spurious alarms. For
example, the OXC may know to which client layer that a
request connection is destined, and in some cases by the penultimate hop.

Other technology specific parameters are not transported "up", "down", in a
"testing" mode, or being deleted ("deletion-in-progress"). The OXC

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft February 2003 26
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

can use this information to inhibit alarm reporting from the
Generalized Label Request but in technology specific traffic
parameters as explained hereafter. Currently, two set of traffic
parameters are defined, OLS
when a connection is "down", "testing", or being deleted.

It is important to note that an OXC may peer with one for SONET/SDH or more OLSs
and an OLS may peer with one or more OXCs. Although there are many
similarities between an OXC-OXC LMP session and one an OXC-OLS LMP
session, particularly for G.709.

Note that it is expected than specific traffic parameters will control management and link verification,
there are some differences as well. These differences can primarily
be
defined in attributed to the future for photonic (all optical) switching.

9.3. SONET/SDH Traffic Parameters

The GMPLS SDH/SONET traffic parameters [SONETSDH-GMPLS] specify a
powerful set nature of capabilities for SONET (ANSI T1.105) an OXC-OLS link, and SDH (ITU-T
G.707). Optional non-standard capabilities are also available in
[SONETSDH-EXT-GMPLS].

The first traffic parameter specifies the type purpose of the elementary
SONET/SDH signal that comprises the requested LSP, e.g. VC-11, VT6,
VC-4, STS-3c, etc. Several transforms
OXC-OLS LMP sessions. The OXC-OXC links can then be applied
successively on the elementary Signal used to build provide the final signal
being actually requested
basis for GMPLS signaling and routing at the LSP.

These transforms are the contiguous concatenation, optical layer. The
information exchanged over LMP-WDM sessions is used to augment
knowledge about the virtual
concatenation, links between OXCs.

In order for the transparency and information exchanged over the multiplication. Each one is
optional. They must OXC-OLS LMP sessions
to be applied strictly in used by the following order:

- First, contiguous concatenation can be optionally applied on OXC-OXC session, the
Elementary Signal, resulting in a contiguously concatenated
signal.
- Second, virtual concatenation can information must be optionally applied either
directly on the elementary Signal, or on
coordinated by the contiguously
concatenated signal obtained from OXC. However, the previous phase.
- Third, some transparency can be optionally specified when
requesting a frame as signal rather than a container. Several
transparency packages OXC-OXC and OXC-OLS LMP
sessions are defined.

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 28
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March 2002

- Fourth, run independently and must be maintained separately.
One critical requirement when running an OXC-OLS LMP session is the
ability of the OLS to make a multiplication can data link transparent when not doing
the verification procedure. This is because the same data link may
be optionally applied either directly
on verified between OXC-OLS and between OXC-OXC. The verification
procedure of LMP is used to coordinate the elementary Signal, or on Test procedure (and hence
the contiguously concatenated
signal obtained from transparency/opaqueness of the first phase, or on data links). To maintain
independence between the virtually
concatenated signal obtained from sessions, it must be possible for the second phase, or on these
signals combined with LMP
sessions to come up in any order. In particular, it must be possible
for an OXC-OXC LMP session to come up without an OXC-OLS LMP session
being brought up, and vice-versa.

9. Generalized Signaling

The GMPLS signaling extends certain base functions of the RSVP-TE
and CR-LDP signaling and, in some transparency.

For RSVP-TE, cases, adds functionality. These
changes and additions impact basic LSP properties, how labels are
requested and communicated, the SONET/SDH traffic parameters unidirectional nature of LSPs, how
errors are carried in a new
SENDER_TSPEC propagated, and FLOWSPEC. information provided for synchronizing
the ingress and egress.

The same format core GMPLS signaling specification is used available in three parts:

1. A signaling functional description [GMPLS-SIG].
2. RSVP-TE extensions [RSVP-TE-GMPLS].
3. CR-LDP extensions [CR-LDP-GMPLS].

In addition, independent parts are available per technology:

1. GMPLS extensions for SONET and SDH control [SONETSDH-GMPLS].
2. GMPLS extensions for both. There
is no Adspec associated with the SENDER_TSPEC, either it is omitted
or a default value is used. G.709 control [G709-GMPLS].

The content of the FLOWSPEC object
received following MPLS profile expressed in a Resv message should be identical terms of MPLS features
[RFC3031] applies to GMPLS:

- Downstream-on-demand label allocation and distribution.
- Ingress initiated ordered control.

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft February 2003 27
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

- Liberal (typical), or conservative (could) label retention
mode.
- Request, traffic/data, or topology driven label allocation
strategy.
- Explicit routing (typical), or hop-by-hop routing.

The GMPLS signaling defines the content of following new building blocks on the
SENDER_TSPEC
top of MPLS-TE:

1. A new generic label request format.
2. Labels for TDM, LSC and FSC interfaces, generically known as
Generalized Label.
3. Waveband switching support.
4. Label suggestion by the corresponding Path message. In other words, upstream for optimization purposes
(e.g. latency).
5. Label restriction by the
receiver is normally not allowed upstream to change the values of the traffic
parameters. However support some level optical
constraints.
6. Bi-directional LSP establishment with contention
resolution.
7. Rapid failure notification extensions.
8. Protection information currently focusing on link protection,
plus primary and secondary LSP indication.
9. Explicit routing with explicit label control for a fine
degree of negotiation may be achieved as
explained in [SONETSDH-GMPLS]

For CR-LDP, the SONET/SDH control.
10. Specific traffic parameters are simply carried per technology.
11. LSP administrative status handling.

These building blocks will be described in a
new TLV.

Note that a general discussion on SDH/SONET and GMPLS mode details in the
following. A complete specification can be found in [SDH/SONET-GMPLS-FRAMEWORK].

9.4. G.709 Traffic Parameters

Simply said, an ITU-T G.709 based network the
corresponding documents.

Note that GMPLS is decomposed in two major
layers: an optical layer (i.e. made of wavelengths) highly generic and a digital
layer. These two layers are divided into sub-layers has many options. Only
building blocks 1, 2 and switching
occurs at two specific sub-layers: at the OCh (Optical Channel)
optical layer 10 are mandatory, and at the ODU (Optical channel Data Unit) electrical
layer. The ODUk notation is used to denotes ODUs at different
bandwidths.

The GMPLS G.709 traffic parameters [G709-GMPLS] specify a powerful
set of capabilities for ITU-T G.709 networks.

The first traffic parameter specifies the type of only within the elementary
G.709 signal
specific format that comprises is needed. Typically building blocks 6 and 9
should be implemented. Building blocks 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 11 are
optional.

A typical SDH/SONET switching network would implement building
blocks: 1, 2 (the SDH/SONET label), 6, 9, 10 and 11. Building blocks
7 and 8 are optional since the requested LSP, e.g. ODU1, OCh at 40
Gbps, etc. Several transforms protection/restoration can then be applied successively on
the elementary Signal to build the final signal being actually
requested for the LSP.

These transforms are
achieved using SDH/SONET overhead bytes.

A typical wavelength switching network would implement building
blocks: 1, 2 (the generic format), 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11. Building
block 3 is only needed in the virtual concatenation particular case of waveband switching.

A typical fiber switching network would implement building blocks:
1, 2 (the generic format), 6, 7, 8, 9 and the
multiplication. Each one 11.

A typical MPLS-IP network would not implement any of these transforms is optional. They must
be applied strictly in building
blocks, since the following order:

- First, virtual concatenation absence of building block 1 would indicate regular
MPLS-IP. Note however that building block 1 and 8 can be optionally applied directly on used to
signal MPLS-IP as well. In that case, the elementary Signal,
- Second, a multiplication MPLS-IP network can be optionally applied, either
directly on the elementary Signal, or on the virtually
concatenated signal obtained
benefit from the first phase.

Additional ODUk Multiplexing traffic parameters allow indicating an
ODUk mapping (ODUj into ODUk) for an ODUk multiplexing LSP request. link protection type (not available in CR-LDP, some

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 29
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March 2002

G.709 supports the following multiplexing capabilities: ODUj into
ODUk (k > j); and ODU1 with ODU2 multiplexing into ODU3.

For RSVP-TE, the SONET/SDH traffic parameters are carried in a new
SENDER-TSPEC and FLOWSPEC. The same format is used for both. There
is no Adspec associated with the SENDER_TSPEC, either it is omitted
or a default value is used. The content of the FLOWSPEC object
received in a Resv message should be identical to the content of the
SENDER_TSPEC of the corresponding Path message.

For CR-LDP, the SONET/SDH traffic parameters are simply carried in a
new TLV.

9.5. Bandwidth Encoding

Some technologies that do not have (yet) specific traffic parameters
just require a bandwidth encoding transported in a generic form.
Bandwidth is carried in 32-bit number February 2003 28
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

very basic form being available in IEEE floating-point format
(the unit RSVP-TE). Building block 2 is bytes per second). Values are carried in
here a per protocol
specific manner. For non-packet LSPs, it regular MPLS label and no new label format is useful required.

GMPLS does not specify any profile for RSVP-TE and CR-LDP
implementations that have to define
discrete values support GMPLS - except for what is
directly related to identify the bandwidth of the LSP. GMPLS procedures. It should be noted that this bandwidth encoding do not apply is to
SONET/SDH and G.709, for which the traffic parameters fully define the requested SONET/SDH or G.709 signal.

The bandwidth is coded in manufacturer to
decide which are the Peak Data Rate field optional elements and procedures of Int-Serv
objects for RSVP-TE in the SENDER_TSPEC and FLOWSPEC objects; and in
the Peak and Committed Data Rate fields of the
CR-LDP Traffic
Parameters TLV.

9.6. Generalized Label

The Generalized Label extends the traditional MPLS label by allowing
the representation of not only labels that travel in-band with
associated data packets, but also (virtual) labels that identify
time-slots, wavelengths, or space division multiplexed positions.

For example, the Generalized Label may identify (a) a single fiber
in a bundle, (b) a single waveband within fiber, (c) a single
wavelength within a waveband (or fiber), or (d) a set of time-slots
within a wavelength (or fiber). It may also be a generic MPLS label,
a Frame Relay label, or an ATM label (VCI/VPI). The format of a
label can need to be as simple as an integer value such as a wavelength
label or implemented. Some optional MPLS-TE elements
can be more elaborated such as useful for TDM, LSC and FSC layers, for instance the setup
and holding priorities that are inherited from MPLS-TE.

9.1. Overview: How to Request an SDH/SONET LSP

A TDM, LSC or FSC LSP is established by sending a G.709
label.

SDH and SONET define each a multiplexing structure. These
multiplexing structures will be used as naming trees PATH/Label Request
message downstream to create
unique labels. Such the destination. This message contains a label will identify
Generalized Label Request with the exact position (times-
lot(s)) type of a signal LSP (i.e. the layer
concerned), and its payload type. An Explicit Route (ERO) is also
normally added to the message, but this can be added and/or
completed by the first/default LSR.

The requested bandwidth is encoded in the RSVP-TE SENDER_TSPEC
object, or in the CR-LDP Traffic Parameters TLV. Specific parameters
for a multiplexing structure. Since given technology are given in these traffic parameters, such
as the SONET
multiplexing structure may type of signal, concatenation and/or transparency for a
SDH/SONET LSP. For some other technology there be seen could just one
bandwidth parameter indicating the bandwidth as a subset of the SDH
multiplexing structure, floating-point
value.

The requested local protection per link may be requested using the same format of label
Protection Information Object/TLV. The end-to-end LSP protection is used
for SDH further study and

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 30
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March 2002

SONET. A similar concept is applied to build introduced LSP protection/restoration
section (see after).

If the LSP is a label at bi-directional LSP, an Upstream Label is also
specified in the G.709
ODU layer.

Since Path/Label Request message. This label will be the nodes sending and receiving
one to use in the Generalized upstream direction.

Additionally, a Suggested Label, a Label know
what kinds of link they are using, the Generalized Set and a Waveband Label does not
identify its type, instead
can also be included in the nodes message. Other operations are expected to know from the
context what type of label to expect.

A defined in
MPLS-TE.

The downstream node will send back a Resv/Label Mapping message
including one Generalized Label only carries object/TLV that can contain several
Generalized Labels. For instance, if a single level of label, i.e. it concatenated SDH/SONET signal
is
non-hierarchical. When multiple levels of requested, several labels (LSPs within LSPs)
are required, each LSP must can be established separately.

9.7. Waveband Switching

A special returned.

In case of wavelength switching is waveband switching. A
waveband represents SDH/SONET virtual concatenation, a set list of contiguous wavelengths, which can be
switched together to a new waveband. For optimization reasons it may
be desirable for a photonic cross-connect labels is
returned. Each label identifying one element of the virtual
concatenated signal. This limits virtual concatenation to optically switch
multiple wavelengths as remain
within a unit. This may reduce the distortion on
the individual wavelengths and may allow tighter separation single (component) link.

In case of the
individual wavelengths. A Waveband any type of SDH/SONET contiguous concatenation, only one
label is defined to support this
special case.

Waveband switching naturally introduces another level returned. That label is the lowest signal of the contiguous
concatenated signal (given an order specified in [SONETSDH-GMPLS]).

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft February 2003 29
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

In case of SDH/SONET "multiplication", i.e. co-routing of circuits
of label
hierarchy and as such the waveband is treated same type but without concatenation but all belonging to the
same way LSP, the explicit ordered list of all other
upper layer labels are treated. As far as signals that take part in
the MPLS protocols are
concerned there LSP is returned.

9.2. Generalized Label Request

The Generalized Label Request is little difference between a waveband label and new object/TLV to be added in an
RSVP-TE Path message instead of the regular Label Request, or in a
wavelength label except that semantically
CR-LDP Request message in addition to the waveband already existing TLVs.
Only one label request can be
subdivided into wavelengths whereas the wavelength used per message, so a single LSP can only
be
subdivided into requested at a time or statistically multiplexed labels.

In per signaling message.

The Generalized Label Request gives three major characteristics
(parameters) required to support the context of waveband switching, LSP being requested: the generalized label LSP
Encoding Type, the Switching Type that must be used to
indicate a waveband contains three fields, a waveband ID, a Start
Label and an End Label. the LSP
payload type called Generalized PID (G-PID).

The Start and End Labels are channel
identifiers from LSP Encoding Type indicates the sender perspective encoding type that identify respectively, will be used
with the lowest value wavelength data associated with the LSP, i.e. the type of technology
being considered. For instance, it can be SDH, SONET, Ethernet, ANSI
PDH, etc. It represents the nature of the LSP, and not the highest value wavelength making
up nature of
the waveband.

9.8. Label Suggestion by links that the Upstream

GMPLS allows for a label to be optionally suggested LSP traverses. This is used hop-by-hop by an upstream each
node. This suggestion

A link may be overridden by support a downstream node but in
some cases, at the cost of higher LSP setup time. The suggested
label is valuable when establishing LSPs through certain kinds set of
optical equipment encoding formats, where there may be support means
that a lengthy (in electrical terms)
delay in configuring the switching fabric. For example micro mirrors
may have link is able to be elevated or moved, and this physical motion carry and
subsequent damping takes time. If switch a signal of one or more of
these encoding formats. The Switching Type indicates then the labels and hence type
of switching
fabric are configured that should be performed on a particular link for that
LSP. This information is needed for links that advertise more than
one type of switching capability.

Nodes must verify that the type indicated in the reverse direction (the norm) Switching Type is
supported on the
MAPPING/Resv corresponding incoming interface; otherwise the
node must generate a notification message may need to be delayed with a "Routing
problem/Switching Type" indication.

The LSP payload type (G-PID) identifies the payload carried by 10's the
LSP, i.e. an identifier of milliseconds
per hop in order to establish a usable forwarding path. It can be
important for restoration purposes where alternate LSPs may need to
be rapidly established as a result the client layer of network failures.

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 31
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March 2002

9.9. Label Restriction by that LSP. For some
technologies it also indicates the Upstream

An upstream node can optionally restrict (limit) mapping used by the choice of label client layer,
e.g. byte synchronous mapping of a downstream node E1. This must be interpreted
according to a set of acceptable labels. Giving lists
and/or ranges the LSP encoding type of inclusive (acceptable) or exclusive (unacceptable)
labels in a Label Set provides this restriction. If not applied, all
labels from the valid label range may be used. There are LSP and is used by the
nodes at least
four cases where the endpoints of the LSP to know to which client layer a label restriction
request is useful destined, and in some cases by the "optical"
domain.

1. The first case is where penultimate hop.

Other technology specific parameters are not transported in the end equipment is only capable of
transmitting and receiving on a small
Generalized Label Request but in technology specific traffic
parameters as explained hereafter. Currently, two set of
wavelengths/bands.

2. The second case is where there is a sequence of interfaces, which
cannot support wavelength conversion traffic
parameters are defined, one for SONET/SDH and require the same wavelength one for G.709.

Note that it is expected than specific traffic parameters will be used end-to-end over
defined in the future for photonic (all optical) switching.

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft February 2003 30
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

9.3. SONET/SDH Traffic Parameters

The GMPLS SDH/SONET traffic parameters [SONETSDH-GMPLS] specify a sequence
powerful set of hops, or even an entire path.

3. capabilities for SONET (ANSI T1.105) and SDH (ITU-T
G.707). Optional non-standard capabilities are also available in
[SONETSDH-EXT-GMPLS].

The third case is where it is desirable to limit first traffic parameter specifies the amount type of
wavelength conversion being performed to reduce the distortion elementary
SONET/SDH signal that comprises the requested LSP, e.g. VC-11, VT6,
VC-4, STS-3c, etc. Several transforms can then be applied
successively on the optical signals.

4. The last case is where two ends of a link support different sets
of wavelengths.

The receiver of a Label Set must restrict its choice of labels elementary Signal to build the final signal
being actually requested for the LSP.

These transforms are the contiguous concatenation, the virtual
concatenation, the transparency and the multiplication. Each one that is
optional. They must be applied strictly in the Label Set. A Label Set may following order:

- First, contiguous concatenation can be present across
multiple hops. In this case each node generates it's own outgoing
Label Set, possibly based optionally applied on the incoming Label Set and
Elementary Signal, resulting in a contiguously concatenated
signal.
- Second, virtual concatenation can be optionally applied either
directly on the node's
hardware capabilities. This case is expected to elementary Signal, or on the contiguously
concatenated signal obtained from the previous phase.
- Third, some transparency can be optionally specified when
requesting a frame as signal rather than a container. Several
transparency packages are defined.
- Fourth, a multiplication can be optionally applied either directly
on the norm for
nodes with conversion incapable interfaces.

9.10. Bi-directional LSP

GMPLS allows establishment of bi-directional symmetric LSPs (not of
asymmetric LSPs). A symmetric bi-directional LSP has elementary Signal, or on the contiguously concatenated
signal obtained from the first phase, or on the virtually
concatenated signal obtained from the second phase, or on these
signals combined with some transparency.

For RSVP-TE, the same SONET/SDH traffic engineering requirements including fate sharing, protection
and restoration, LSRs, and resource requirements (e.g. latency and
jitter) parameters are carried in each direction.

In a new
SENDER_TSPEC and FLOWSPEC. The same format is used for both. There
is no Adspec associated with the remainder SENDER_TSPEC, either it is omitted
or a default value is used. The content of this section, the term "initiator" is used to
refer to FLOWSPEC object
received in a node that starts Resv message should be identical to the establishment content of an LSP and the term
"terminator" is used to refer to
SENDER_TSPEC of the node that corresponding Path message. In other words, the
receiver is normally not allowed to change the target values of the
LSP. traffic
parameters. However some level of negotiation may be achieved as
explained in [SONETSDH-GMPLS]

For CR-LDP, the SONET/SDH traffic parameters are simply carried in a bi-directional LSPs, there
new TLV.

Note that a general discussion on SDH/SONET and GMPLS can be found
in [SDH/SONET-GMPLS-FRAMEWORK].

9.4. G.709 Traffic Parameters

Simply said, an ITU-T G.709 based network is only one initiator decomposed in two major
layers: an optical layer (i.e. made of wavelengths) and one
terminator.

Normally to establish a bi-directional LSP when using [RSVP-TE] or
[CR-LDP] digital
layer. These two unidirectional paths must be independently established.
This approach has the following disadvantages:

1. The latency to establish the bi-directional LSP is equal to one
round trip signaling time plus one initiator-terminator signaling
transit delay. This not only extends layers are divided into sub-layers and switching
occurs at two specific sub-layers: at the setup latency for OCh (Optical Channel)

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 32
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March February 2003 31
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

successful LSP establishment, but it extends

optical layer and at the worst-case latency
for discovering an unsuccessful LSP ODU (Optical channel Data Unit) electrical
layer. The ODUk notation is used to as much as two times the
initiator-terminator transit delay. These delays are particularly
significant for LSPs that are established denotes ODUs at different
bandwidths.

The GMPLS G.709 traffic parameters [G709-GMPLS] specify a powerful
set of capabilities for restoration purposes.

2. ITU-T G.709 networks.

The control overhead is twice that first traffic parameter specifies the type of a unidirectional LSP. This
is because separate control messages (e.g. Path and Resv) must the elementary
G.709 signal that comprises the requested LSP, e.g. ODU1, OCh at 40
Gbps, etc. Several transforms can then be
generated applied successively on
the elementary Signal to build the final signal being actually
requested for both segments of the bi-directional LSP.

3. Because the resources

These transforms are established in separate segments, route
selection is complicated. There the virtual concatenation and the
multiplication. Each one of these transforms is also additional potential race
for conditions optional. They must
be applied strictly in assignment of resources, which decreases the
overall probability of successfully establishing following order:

- First, virtual concatenation can be optionally applied directly on
the bi-directional
connection.

4. It is more difficult to provide elementary Signal,
- Second, a clean interface for SDH/SONET
equipment that may rely multiplication can be optionally applied, either
directly on bi-directional hop-by-hop paths the elementary Signal, or on the virtually
concatenated signal obtained from the first phase.

Additional ODUk Multiplexing traffic parameters allow indicating an
ODUk mapping (ODUj into ODUk) for
protection switching. Note that existing SDH/SONET gear transmits an ODUk multiplexing LSP request.
G.709 supports the control information in-band following multiplexing capabilities: ODUj into
ODUk (k > j); and ODU1 with ODU2 multiplexing into ODU3.

For RSVP-TE, the data.

5. Bi-directional optical LSPs (or lightpaths) SONET/SDH traffic parameters are seen as carried in a
requirement new
SENDER-TSPEC and FLOWSPEC. The same format is used for many optical networking service providers.

With bi-directional LSPs both both. There
is no Adspec associated with the downstream and upstream data
paths, i.e. from initiator to terminator and terminator to
initiator, are established using SENDER_TSPEC, either it is omitted
or a single set default value is used. The content of signaling messages.
This reduces the setup latency FLOWSPEC object
received in a Resv message should be identical to essentially one initiator-
terminator round trip time plus processing time, and limits the
control overhead to content of the same number
SENDER_TSPEC of messages as the corresponding Path message.

For CR-LDP, the SONET/SDH traffic parameters are simply carried in a unidirectional
LSP.
new TLV.

9.5. Bandwidth Encoding

Some technologies that do not have (yet) specific traffic parameters
just require a bandwidth encoding transported in a generic form.
Bandwidth is carried in 32-bit number in IEEE floating-point format
(the unit is bytes per second). Values are carried in a per protocol
specific manner. For bi-directional non-packet LSPs, two labels must it is useful to define
discrete values to identify the bandwidth of the LSP.

It should be allocated. Bi-
directional LSP setup noted that this bandwidth encoding do not apply to
SONET/SDH and G.709, for which the traffic parameters fully define
the requested SONET/SDH or G.709 signal.

The bandwidth is indicated by coded in the presence Peak Data Rate field of an Upstream
Label Int-Serv
objects for RSVP-TE in the appropriate signaling message.

9.11. Bi-directional LSP Contention Resolution

Contention for labels may occur between two bi-directional LSP setup
requests traveling SENDER_TSPEC and FLOWSPEC objects; and in opposite directions. This contention occurs
when both sides allocate

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft February 2003 32
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

the same resources (ports) at effectively Peak and Committed Data Rate fields of the same time. CR-LDP Traffic
Parameters TLV.

9.6. Generalized Label

The GMPLS signaling defines a procedure to resolve
that contention, basically Generalized Label extends the node traditional MPLS label by allowing
the representation of not only labels that travel in-band with
associated data packets, but also (virtual) labels that identify
time-slots, wavelengths, or space division multiplexed positions.

For example, the higher node ID Generalized Label may identify (a) a single fiber
in a bundle, (b) a single waveband within fiber, (c) a single
wavelength within a waveband (or fiber), or (d) a set of time-slots
within a wavelength (or fiber). It may also be a generic MPLS label,
a Frame Relay label, or an ATM label (VCI/VPI). The format of a
label can be as simple as an integer value such as a wavelength
label or can be more elaborated such as an SDH/SONET or a G.709
label.

SDH and SONET define each a multiplexing structure. These
multiplexing structures will win
the contention. To reduce be used as naming trees to create
unique labels. Such a label will identify the probability exact position (times-
lot(s)) of contention, some
mechanisms are also suggested.

9.12. Rapid Notification a signal in a multiplexing structure. Since the SONET
multiplexing structure may be seen as a subset of Failure

GMPLS defines several signaling extensions that enable expedited
notification the SDH
multiplexing structure, the same format of failures label is used for SDH and other events
SONET. A similar concept is applied to build a label at the G.709
ODU layer.

Since the nodes responsible for
restoring failed LSPs, sending and error handling.

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 33
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March 2002

1. Acceptable Label Set for notification on receiving the Generalized Label Error:

There know
what kinds of link they are cases in traditional MPLS and in GMPLS that result in an
error message containing an "Unacceptable label value" indication.
When these cases occur, it can useful for using, the node generating Generalized Label does not
identify its type, instead the
error message nodes are expected to indicate which labels would be acceptable. To cover
this case, GMPLS introduces know from the ability
context what type of label to convey such information
via the "Acceptable Label Set". An Acceptable expect.

A Generalized Label Set is carried
in appropriate protocol specific error messages. The format only carries a single level of an
Acceptable Label Set label, i.e. it is identical to a Label Set.

2. Expedited notification:

Extensions to RSVP-TE enable expedited notification
non-hierarchical. When multiple levels of failures and
other events to determined nodes. For CR-LDP there labels (LSPs within LSPs)
are required, each LSP must be established separately.

9.7. Waveband Switching

A special case of wavelength switching is not currently waveband switching. A
waveband represents a similar mechanism. The first extension identifies where event
notifications are set of contiguous wavelengths, which can be
switched together to a new waveband. For optimization reasons it may
be sent. The second provides desirable for general
expedited event notification with a Notify message. Such extensions
can be used by fast restoration mechanisms. Notifications photonic cross-connect to optically switch
multiple wavelengths as a unit. This may be
requested in both reduce the upstream distortion on
the individual wavelengths and downstream directions.

The Notify message differs from may allow tighter separation of the currently
individual wavelengths. A Waveband label is defined error messages
in that it can be "targeted" to a node other than the immediate
upstream or downstream neighbor support this
special case.

Waveband switching naturally introduces another level of label
hierarchy and that it as such the waveband is a generalized
notification mechanism. The Notify message does not replace existing
error messages. The Notify message may be sent either (a) normally,
where non-target nodes just forward treated the Notify message to same way all other
upper layer labels are treated. As far as the target
node, similar to ResvConf processing in [RSVP]; or (b) encapsulated
in a new IP header whose destination MPLS protocols are
concerned there is equal to little difference between a waveband label and a
wavelength label except that semantically the target IP
address.

3. Faster removal of intermediate states:

A specific RSVP optimization allowing in some cases waveband can be

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft February 2003 33
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

subdivided into wavelengths whereas the wavelength can only be
subdivided into time or statistically multiplexed labels.

In the faster
removal context of intermediate states. This extension is waveband switching, the generalized label used to deal with
specific RSVP mechanisms.

9.13. Link Protection

Protection information is carried in the new optional Protection
Information Object/TLV. It currently indicates the desired link
protection for each link of an LSP. If
indicate a particular protection type,
i.e., 1+1, or 1:N, is requested, then waveband contains three fields, a connection request is
processed only if waveband ID, a Start
Label and an End Label. The Start and End Labels are channel
identifiers from the desired protection type can be honored. Note sender perspective that GMPLS advertises identify respectively,
the protection capabilities of a link in lowest value wavelength and the
routing protocols. Path computation algorithms may take this
information into account when computing paths for setting highest value wavelength making
up LSPs.

Protection information also indicates if the LSP is a primary or
secondary LSP. A secondary LSP is waveband.

9.8. Label Suggestion by the Upstream

GMPLS allows for a backup label to be optionally suggested by an upstream
node. This suggestion may be overridden by a primary LSP. downstream node but in
some cases, at the cost of higher LSP setup time. The
resources suggested
label is valuable when establishing LSPs through certain kinds of
optical equipment where there may be a secondary LSP are normally not used until lengthy (in electrical terms)
delay in configuring the primary
LSP fails, but they switching fabric. For example micro mirrors
may have to be used by other LSPs until the primary LSP
fails over elevated or moved, and this physical motion and
subsequent damping takes time. If the secondary LSP. At that point, any LSP that is using labels and hence switching
fabric are configured in the resources for reverse direction (the norm) the secondary LSP must
MAPPING/Resv message may need to be preempted.

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 34
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March 2002

Six link protection types are currently defined as individual flags
and delayed by 10's of milliseconds
per hop in order to establish a usable forwarding path. It can be combined: enhanced, dedicated 1+1, dedicated 1:1, shared,
unprotected, extra traffic. See [GMPLS-SIG] section 7.1
important for restoration purposes where alternate LSPs may need to
be rapidly established as a
precise definition result of each.

9.14. Explicit Routing and Explicit network failures.

9.9. Label Control

By using an explicit route the path taken Restriction by an LSP the Upstream

An upstream node can be
controlled more or less precisely. Typically, optionally restrict (limit) the choice of label
of a downstream node to a set of acceptable labels. Giving lists
and/or ranges of inclusive (acceptable) or exclusive (unacceptable)
labels in a Label Set provides this restriction. If not applied, all
labels from the valid label range may be used. There are at least
four cases where a label restriction is useful in the "optical"
domain.

1. The first case is where the head- end equipment is only capable of an LSP finds an explicit route and builds an Explicit Route
Object (ERO)/ Explicit Route (ER) TLV that contains that route.
Possibly, the edge node does not build any explicit route,
transmitting and just
transmit receiving on a small specific set of
wavelengths/bands.

2. The second case is where there is a signaling request to sequence of interfaces, which
cannot support wavelength conversion and require the same wavelength
be used end-to-end over a default neighbor LSR (as IP/MPLS
hosts would). For instance, sequence of hops, or even an explicit route could be added entire path.

3. The third case is where it is desirable to a
signaling message by limit the first switching node, on behalf amount of
wavelength conversion being performed to reduce the edge
node. Note also that an explicit route is altered by intermediate
LSRs during its progression towards distortion on
the destination. optical signals.

4. The explicit route last case is originally defined by MPLS-TE as where two ends of a list link support different sets
of
abstract nodes (i.e. groups wavelengths.

The receiver of nodes) along a Label Set must restrict its choice of labels to
one that is in the explicit route. Each
abstract node can Label Set. A Label Set may be an IPv4 address prefix, an IPv6 address prefix,
or an AS number. present across
multiple hops. In this case each node generates it's own outgoing

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft February 2003 34
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

Label Set, possibly based on the incoming Label Set and the node's
hardware capabilities. This capability case is expected to be the norm for
nodes with conversion incapable interfaces.

9.10. Bi-directional LSP

GMPLS allows establishment of bi-directional symmetric LSPs (not of
asymmetric LSPs). A symmetric bi-directional LSP has the generator same
traffic engineering requirements including fate sharing, protection
and restoration, LSRs, and resource requirements (e.g. latency and
jitter) in each direction.

In the remainder of this section, the
explicit route term "initiator" is used to have incomplete information about
refer to a node that starts the details establishment of an LSP and the path. In term
"terminator" is used to refer to the simplest case, an abstract node can be a full IP
address (32 bits) that identifies a specific node (called is the target of the
LSP. For a simple
abstract node).

MPLS-TE allows strict bi-directional LSPs, there is only one initiator and loose abstract nodes. The path between one
terminator.

Normally to establish a
strict node and its preceding node bi-directional LSP when using [RSVP-TE] or
[CR-LDP] two unidirectional paths must include only network nodes
from be independently established.
This approach has the strict node and its preceding abstract node. following disadvantages:

1. The path
between a loose node and its preceding abstract node may include
other network nodes that are not part of latency to establish the loose node or its
preceding abstract node. bi-directional LSP is equal to one
round trip signaling time plus one initiator-terminator signaling
transit delay. This explicit route was extended not only extends the setup latency for
successful LSP establishment, but it extends the worst-case latency
for discovering an unsuccessful LSP to include interface numbers as
abstract nodes to support unnumbered interfaces; and further
extended by GMPLS to include labels much as abstract nodes. Having labels two times the
initiator-terminator transit delay. These delays are particularly
significant for LSPs that are established for restoration purposes.

2. The control overhead is twice that of a unidirectional LSP. This
is because separate control messages (e.g. Path and Resv) must be
generated for both segments of the bi-directional LSP.

3. Because the resources are established in an explicit separate segments, route
selection is an important feature that allows controlling complicated. There is also additional potential race
for conditions in assignment of resources, which decreases the placement
overall probability of an LSP with a very fine granularity. This successfully establishing the bi-directional
connection.

4. It is more
likely difficult to be used provide a clean interface for TDM, LSC and FSC links.

In particular, SDH/SONET
equipment that may rely on bi-directional hop-by-hop paths for
protection switching. Note that existing SDH/SONET gear transmits
the explicit label control in information in-band with the explicit route
allows terminating an LSP on a particular outgoing port of an egress
node. Indeed, a label sub-object/TLV must follow data.

5. Bi-directional optical LSPs (or lightpaths) are seen as a sub-object/TLV
containing the IP address, or the interface identifier (in case of
unnumbered interface), associated with
requirement for many optical networking service providers.

With bi-directional LSPs both the link on which it is downstream and upstream data
paths, i.e. from initiator to be
used.

This can also be used when it is desirable terminator and terminator to "splice" two LSPs
together, i.e. where the tail
initiator, are established using a single set of signaling messages.
This reduces the first LSP would be "spliced"
into the head of setup latency to essentially one initiator-
terminator round trip time plus processing time, and limits the second LSP.

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 February 2003 35
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

Another use is when an optimization algorithm is used for an
SDH/SONET network. This algorithm can provide very detailed explicit
routes, including the label (time-slot) to use on a link, in order

control overhead to minimize the fragmentation same number of messages as a unidirectional
LSP.

For bi-directional LSPs, two labels must be allocated. Bi-
directional LSP setup is indicated by the SDH/SONET multiplex on the
corresponding interface.

9.15. Route recording

In order to improve the reliability and the manageability presence of an Upstream
Label in the appropriate signaling message.

9.11. Bi-directional LSP
being established, Contention Resolution

Contention for labels may occur between two bi-directional LSP setup
requests traveling in opposite directions. This contention occurs
when both sides allocate the concept of same resources (ports) at effectively
the route recording was introduced
in RSVP-TE to function as:

- First, same time. The GMPLS signaling defines a loop detection mechanism procedure to discover L3 routing loops, or
loops inherent in resolve
that contention, basically the explicit route (this mechanism is strictly
exclusive node with the use of explicit routing objects).

- Second, a route recording mechanism collects up-to-date detailed
path information on a hop-by-hop basis during higher node ID will win
the LSP setup process.
This mechanism provides valuable information to contention. To reduce the source probability of contention, some
mechanisms are also suggested.

9.12. Rapid Notification of Failure

GMPLS defines several signaling extensions that enable expedited
notification of failures and
destination nodes. Any intermediate routing change at setup time, other events to nodes responsible for
restoring failed LSPs, and error handling.

1. Acceptable Label Set for notification on Label Error:

There are cases in
case of loose explicit routing, will be reported.

- Third, a recorded route traditional MPLS and in GMPLS that result in an
error message containing an "Unacceptable label value" indication.
When these cases occur, it can be used as input for an explicit
route. This is useful if a source node receives for the recorded route
from a destination node and applies it as an explicit route in order
to "pin down the path".

Within generating the
error message to indicate which labels would be acceptable. To cover
this case, GMPLS architecture only introduces the second and third functions
are mainly applicable for TDM, LSC and FSC layers.

9.16. LSP modification and LSP re-routing

LSP modification and re-routing are two features already available
in MPLS-TE. GMPLS does not add anything new. Elegant re-routing is
possible with ability to convey such information
via the concept "Acceptable Label Set". An Acceptable Label Set is carried
in appropriate protocol specific error messages. The format of "make-before-break" whereby an old path
Acceptable Label Set is still used while identical to a new path is set up by avoiding double
reservation Label Set.

2. Expedited notification:

Extensions to RSVP-TE enable expedited notification of resources. Then, the node performing the re-routing
can swap on the new path failures and close the old path. This feature
other events to determined nodes. For CR-LDP there is
supported not currently
a similar mechanism. The first extension identifies where event
notifications are to be sent. The second provides for general
expedited event notification with RSVP-TE (using shared explicit filters) and CR-LDP
(using the action indicator flag).

LSP modification consists a Notify message. Such extensions
can be used by fast restoration mechanisms. Notifications may be
requested in changing some LSP parameters, but
normally without changing the route. It is supported using the same
mechanism as re-routing. However, both the semantic of LSP modification
will differ upstream and downstream directions.

The Notify message differs from one technology to the other. For instance, further
studies are required currently defined error messages
in that it can be "targeted" to understand the impact of dynamically
changing some SDH/SONET circuit characteristics such as a node other than the
bandwidth, immediate
upstream or downstream neighbor and that it is a generalized
notification mechanism. The Notify message does not replace existing
error messages. The Notify message may be sent either (a) normally,
where non-target nodes just forward the protection type, Notify message to the transparency, target
node, similar to ResvConf processing in [RSVP]; or (b) encapsulated
in a new IP header whose destination is equal to the concatenation,
etc. target IP
address.

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 February 2003 36
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

9.17. LSP administrative status handling

GMPLS provides the optional capability to indicate

3. Faster removal of intermediate states:

A specific RSVP optimization allowing in some cases the
administrative status faster
removal of an LSP by using a new Admin Status
object/TLV. Administrative Status Information intermediate states. This extension is currently used in
two ways.

In the first usage, Admin Status the object/TLV to deal with
specific RSVP mechanisms.

9.13. Link Protection

Protection information is carried in a
Path/Label Request or Resv/Label Mapping message to indicate the
administrative state new optional Protection
Information Object/TLV. It currently indicates the desired link
protection for each link of an LSP. In this usage, Administrative Status
Information indicates If a particular protection type,
i.e., 1+1, or 1:N, is requested, then a connection request is
processed only if the desired protection type can be honored. Note
that GMPLS advertises the state protection capabilities of the LSP, which include "up" or
"down", if it in a "testing" mode, and if deletion is link in progress.

Based on that administrative status, a node can the
routing protocols. Path computation algorithms may take local
decisions, like to inhibit alarm reporting this
information into account when an computing paths for setting up LSPs.

Protection information also indicates if the LSP is in "down"
or "testing" states, or to report alarms associated with the
connection at a priority equal to primary or less than "Non service
affecting".

It
secondary LSP. A secondary LSP is possible that some nodes along an a backup to a primary LSP. The
resources of a secondary LSP will are normally not support used until the
Admin Status Object/TLV. In primary
LSP fails, but they may be used by other LSPs until the case of a non-supporting transit
node, primary LSP
fails over the object will pass through secondary LSP. At that point, any LSP that is using
the node unmodified resources for the secondary LSP must be preempted.

Six link protection types are currently defined as individual flags
and normal
processing can continue.

In some circumstances, particularly optical networks, it is useful
to set the administrative status be combined: enhanced, dedicated 1+1, dedicated 1:1, shared,
unprotected, extra traffic. See [GMPLS-SIG] section 7.1 for a
precise definition of each.

9.14. Explicit Routing and Explicit Label Control

By using an explicit route the path taken by an LSP to "being deleted" before
tearing it down in order to avoid non-useful generation of alarms.
The ingress LSR precedes can be
controlled more or less precisely. Typically, the node at the head-
end of an LSP deletion by inserting finds an appropriate
Admin Status Object/TLV in a Path/Label Request (with the
modification action indicator flag set to modify) message. Transit
LSRs process explicit route and builds an Explicit Route
Object (ERO)/ Explicit Route (ER) TLV that contains that route.
Possibly, the Admin Status Object/TLV edge node does not build any explicit route, and forward it. The egress
LSR answers in just
transmit a Resv/Label Mapping (with the modification action
indicator flag set signaling request to modify) message with the Admin Status object.
Upon receiving this message and object, the ingress node sends a
PathTear/Release message downstream default neighbor LSR (as IP/MPLS
hosts would). For instance, an explicit route could be added to remove a
signaling message by the LSP and normal
RSVP/CR-LDP processing takes place.

In first switching node, on behalf of the second usage, edge
node. Note also that an explicit route is altered by intermediate
LSRs during its progression towards the Admin Status object/TLV destination.

The explicit route is carried in originally defined by MPLS-TE as a
Notification/Label Mapping (with the modification action indicator
flag set to modify) message to request that list of
abstract nodes (i.e. groups of nodes) along the ingress explicit route. Each
abstract node change
the administrative state of can be an LSP. IPv4 address prefix, an IPv6 address prefix,
or an AS number. This capability allows intermediate and
egress nodes to trigger the setting of administrative status. In
particular this allows, intermediate or egress LSRs to request a
release generator of an LSP initiated by the ingress node.

9.18. Control channel separation

In GMPLS, a control channel can be separated from
explicit route to have incomplete information about the data channel.
Indeed, details of
the control channel path. In the simplest case, an abstract node can be implemented completely out-of-
band for various reasons, e.g. when a full IP
address (32 bits) that identifies a specific node (called a simple
abstract node).

MPLS-TE allows strict and loose abstract nodes. The path between a
strict node and its preceding node must include only network nodes
from the data channel cannot carry
in-band control information. This issue was even originally
introduced to MPLS in connection with link bundling. strict node and its preceding abstract node. The path

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 February 2003 37
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

In traditional MPLS there is an implicit one-to-one association of a
control channel to a data channel. When such an association is
present, no additional or special information is required to
associate a particular LSP setup transaction with a particular data
channel.

Otherwise it is necessary to convey additional information in
signaling to identify the particular data channel being controlled.
GMPLS supports explicit data channel identification by providing
interface identification information. GMPLS allows the use of

between a
number of interface identification schemes including IPv4 or IPv6
addresses, interface indexes (for unnumbered interfaces) loose node and
component interfaces (for bundled interfaces), unnumbered bunled
interfaces its preceding abstract node may include
other network nodes that are also supported.

The choice not part of the data loose node or its
preceding abstract node.

This explicit route was extended to include interface numbers as
abstract nodes to use support unnumbered interfaces; and further
extended by GMPLS to include labels as abstract nodes. Having labels
in an explicit route is always made by an important feature that allows controlling
the sender placement of the Path/Label Request message, an LSP with a very fine granularity. This is more
likely to be used for TDM, LSC and indicated by including FSC links.

In particular, the
data channel's interface identifier explicit label control in the message using explicit route
allows terminating an LSP on a new
RSVP_HOP object sub-type/Interface TLV.

For bi-directional LSPs, particular outgoing port of an egress
node. Indeed, a label sub-object/TLV must follow a sub-object/TLV
containing the sender chooses IP address, or the data interface in
each direction. In all cases but bundling, identifier (in case of
unnumbered interface), associated with the upstream interface link on which it is
implied by the downstream interface. For bundling, the Path/Label
Request sender explicitly identifies the component interface to be
used.

This can also be used in
each direction. The new object/TLV when it is used in Resv/Label Mapping
message desirable to indicate "splice" two LSPs
together, i.e. where the downstream node's usage tail of the indicated
interface(s).

The new object/TLV can contain a list of embedded TLVs, each
embedded TLV can first LSP would be "spliced"
into the head of the second LSP.

Another use is when an IPv4 address, and IPv6 address, optimization algorithm is used for an interface
index,
SDH/SONET network. This algorithm can provide very detailed explicit
routes, including the label (time-slot) to use on a downstream component interface ID or an upstream component
interface ID. In link, in order
to minimize the last three cases, fragmentation of the SDH/SONET multiplex on the
corresponding interface.

9.15. Route recording

In order to improve the embedded TLV contains
itself an IP address plus an Interface ID, reliability and the IP address manageability of the LSP
being used
to identify established, the interface ID (it can be concept of the router ID for instance).

There are cases where it is useful route recording was introduced
in RSVP-TE to indicate function as:

- First, a specific interface
associated loop detection mechanism to discover L3 routing loops, or
loops inherent in the explicit route (this mechanism is strictly
exclusive with an error. To support these cases the IF_ID
ERROR_SPEC RSVP Objects are defined.

10. Forwarding Adjacencies (FA)

To improve scalability use of MPLS TE (and thus GMPLS) it may be useful
to aggregate multiple TE LSPs inside explicit routing objects).

- Second, a bigger TE LSP. Intermediate
nodes see route recording mechanism collects up-to-date detailed
path information on a hop-by-hop basis during the external LSP only, they don't have to maintain
forwarding states for each internal LSP, less signaling messages
need setup process.
This mechanism provides valuable information to be exchanged and the external LSP source and
destination nodes. Any intermediate routing change at setup time, in
case of loose explicit routing, will be reported.

- Third, a recorded route can be somehow protected
instead (or in addition) to the internal LSPs. used as input for an explicit
route. This can considerably
increase the scalability of the signaling.

The aggregation is accomplished by (a) an LSR creating useful if a TE LSP, (b) source node receives the LSR forming a forwarding adjacency out of that LSP (advertising
this LSP as recorded route
from a Traffic Engineering (TE) link into ISIS/OSPF), (c)
allowing other LSRs destination node and applies it as an explicit route in order
to use forwarding adjacencies "pin down the path".

Within the GMPLS architecture only the second and third functions
are mainly applicable for their path
computation, TDM, LSC and (d) nesting of LSPs originated by other LSRs into FSC layers.

9.16. LSP modification and LSP re-routing

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 February 2003 38
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

that

LSP (e.g. by using the label stack construct modification and re-routing are two features already available
in MPLS-TE. GMPLS does not add anything new. Elegant re-routing is
possible with the case concept of
IP).

An LSR may (under its local configuration control) announce "make-before-break" whereby an LSP
as old path
is still used while a TE link into ISIS/OSPF. When this link new path is advertised into set up by avoiding double
reservation of resources. Then, the node performing the re-routing
can swap on the new path and close the old path. This feature is
supported with RSVP-TE (using shared explicit filters) and CR-LDP
(using the action indicator flag).

LSP modification consists in changing some LSP parameters, but
normally without changing the route. It is supported using the same instance of ISIS/OSPF
mechanism as re-routing. However, the semantic of LSP modification
will differ from one that determines technology to the route
taken by other. For instance, further
studies are required to understand the LSP, we call impact of dynamically
changing some SDH/SONET circuit characteristics such a link a "forwarding adjacency" (FA).
We refer to as the
bandwidth, the protection type, the transparency, the concatenation,
etc.

9.17. LSP as administrative status handling

GMPLS provides the "forwarding adjacency LSP", or just FA-
LSP. Note that since optional capability to indicate the advertised entity is
administrative status of an LSP by using a link new Admin Status
object/TLV. Administrative Status Information is currently used in ISIS/OSPF,
both
two ways.

In the endpoint LSRs of first usage, Admin Status the FA-LSP must belong object/TLV is carried in a
Path/Label Request or Resv/Label Mapping message to indicate the same ISIS
level/OSPF area (intra-area improvement
administrative state of scalability). an LSP. In general, creation/termination this usage, Administrative Status
Information indicates the state of the LSP, which include "up" or
"down", if it in a FA "testing" mode, and its FA-LSP could be
driven either by mechanisms outside of MPLS (e.g., via configuration
control if deletion is in progress.

Based on that administrative status, a node can take local
decisions, like to inhibit alarm reporting when an LSP is in "down"
or "testing" states, or to report alarms associated with the LSR
connection at the head-end of the adjacency), or by
mechanisms within MPLS (e.g., as a result of priority equal to or less than "Non service
affecting".

It is possible that some nodes along an LSP will not support the LSR at
Admin Status Object/TLV. In the head-end case of a non-supporting transit
node, the adjacency receiving LSP setup requests originated by some
other LSRs).

ISIS/OSPF floods object will pass through the information about FAs just as node unmodified and normal
processing can continue.

In some circumstances, particularly optical networks, it floods is useful
to set the
information about any other links. As a result administrative status of this flooding, an
LSR has LSP to "being deleted" before
tearing it down in order to avoid non-useful generation of alarms.
The ingress LSR precedes an LSP deletion by inserting an appropriate
Admin Status Object/TLV in its TE link state database the information about not just
conventional links, but FAs as well.

An LSR, when performing path computation, uses not just conventional
links, but FAs as well. Once a path is computed, Path/Label Request (with the
modification action indicator flag set to modify) message. Transit
LSRs process the Admin Status Object/TLV and forward it. The egress
LSR uses RSVP-
TE/CR-LDP for establishing label binding along answers in a Resv/Label Mapping (with the path. FAs need
simple extensions modification action
indicator flag set to signaling and routing protocols.

10.1. Routing modify) message with the Admin Status object.
Upon receiving this message and Forwarding Adjacencies

Forwarding adjacencies may be represented as either unnumbered or
numbered links. A FA can also be object, the ingress node sends a bundle of LSPs between two nodes.

FAs are advertised as GMPLS TE links such as defined in [HIERARCHY].
GMPLS TE links are advertised in OSPF
PathTear/Release message downstream to remove the LSP and ISIS such as defined normal
RSVP/CR-LDP processing takes place.

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft February 2003 39
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

In the second usage, the Admin Status object/TLV is carried in
[OSPF-TE-GMPLS] and [ISIS-TE-GMPLS]. These last two specifications
enhance [OSPF-TE] and [ISIS-TE] that defines a base TE link.

When a FA is created dynamically, its TE attributes are inherited
from
Notification/Label Mapping (with the FA-LSP modification action indicator
flag set to modify) message to request that induced its creation. [HIERARCHY] specifies how
each TE parameter of the FA is inherited from ingress node change
the FA-LSP. Note that administrative state of an LSP. This allows intermediate and
egress nodes to trigger the bandwidth setting of administrative status. In
particular this allows, intermediate or egress LSRs to request a
release of an LSP initiated by the FA must ingress node.

9.18. Control channel separation

In GMPLS, a control channel can be at least as big as separated from the FA-LSP that
induced it, but may data channel.
Indeed, the control channel can be bigger if only discrete bandwidths are
available implemented completely out-of-
band for various reasons, e.g. when the FA-LSP. data channel cannot carry
in-band control information. This issue was even originally
introduced to MPLS in connection with link bundling.

In general, for dynamically provisioned
forwarding adjacencies, traditional MPLS there is an implicit one-to-one association of a policy-based mechanism may be needed to
associate attributes
control channel to forwarding adjacencies.

A FA advertisement could contain the information about the path
taken by the FA-LSP associated with that FA. Other LSRs may use this
information for path computation. This a data channel. When such an association is
present, no additional or special information is carried in required to
associate a
new OSPF and IS-IS TLV called the Path TLV.

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 39
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March 2002

It particular LSP setup transaction with a particular data
channel.

Otherwise it is possible that the underlying path necessary to convey additional information might change
over time, via configuration updates, or dynamic route
modifications, resulting in
signaling to identify the change of that TLV.

If forwarding adjacencies are bundled (via link bundling), and if particular data channel being controlled.
GMPLS supports explicit data channel identification by providing
interface identification information. GMPLS allows the resulting bundled link carries use of a Path TLV, the underlying path
followed by each
number of the FA-LSPs that form the interface identification schemes including IPv4 or IPv6
addresses, interface indexes (for unnumbered interfaces) and
component links must
be interfaces (for bundled interfaces), unnumbered bunled
interfaces are also supported.

The choice of the same.

It data interface to use is expected that forwarding adjacencies will not be used for
establishing ISIS/OSPF peering relation between the routers at always made by the
ends sender
of the adjacency.

LSP hierarchy could exist both with the peer and with the overlay
models. With the peer model the LSP hierarchy is realized via FAs
and an LSP is both created Path/Label Request message, and used as a TE link indicated by exactly including the same
instance of
data channel's interface identifier in the control plane. Creating LSP hierarchy with overlays
doesn't involve message using a new
RSVP_HOP object sub-type/Interface TLV.

For bi-directional LSPs, the concept of FA. With sender chooses the overlay model an LSP
created (and maintained) by one instance of data interface in
each direction. In all cases but bundling, the GMPLS control plane upstream interface is used as a TE link
implied by another instance of the GMPLS control plane.
Moreover, downstream interface. For bundling, the nodes using a TE link are expected Path/Label
Request sender explicitly identifies the component interface used in
each direction. The new object/TLV is used in Resv/Label Mapping
message to have a routing
and signaling adjacency.

10.2. Signaling aspects

For indicate the purpose downstream node's usage of processing the explicit route in indicated
interface(s).

The new object/TLV can contain a Path/Request
message list of an LSP that is to embedded TLVs, each
embedded TLV can be tunneled over an IPv4 address, and IPv6 address, an interface
index, a forwarding
adjacency, downstream component interface ID or an LSR at the head-end of the FA-LSP views upstream component
interface ID. In the LSR at last three cases, the
tail of that FA-LSP as adjacent (one embedded TLV contains
itself an IP hop away).

10.3. Cascading of Forwarding Adjacencies

With address plus an integrated model several layers are controlled using Interface ID, the
same routing and signaling protocols. A network may then have links
with different multiplexing/demultiplexing capabilities. For
example, a node may be able IP address being used
to multiplex/demultiplex individual
packets on a given link, and may identify the interface ID (it can be able the router ID for instance).

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft February 2003 40
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

There are cases where it is useful to multiplex/demultiplex
channels within indicate a SONET payload on other links.

A new OSPF and IS-IS sub-TLV has been defined to advertise specific interface
associated with an error. To support these cases the
multiplexing capability IF_ID
ERROR_SPEC RSVP Objects are defined.

10. Forwarding Adjacencies (FA)

To improve scalability of each interface: PSC, L2SC, TDM, LSC or
FSC. This sub-TLV is named the Link Multiplex Capability sub-TLV and
complements the sub-TLVs defined in [OSPF-TE-GMPLS] and [ISIS-TE-
GMPLS]. The information carried in this sub-TLV is used to construct
LSP regions, and determine region�s boundaries.

Path computation MPLS TE (and thus GMPLS) it may take into account region boundaries when
computing be useful
to aggregate multiple TE LSPs inside a path for an bigger TE LSP. For example, path computation may
restrict Intermediate
nodes see the path taken by an external LSP only, they don't have to only the links whose
multiplexing/demultiplexing capability is PSC. When an LSP maintain
forwarding states for each internal LSP, less signaling messages
need to
cross a region boundary, it can trigger the establishment of an FA
at be exchanged and the underlying layer (i.e. external LSP can be somehow protected
instead (or in addition) to the L2SC layer). internal LSPs. This can trigger a
cascading considerably
increase the scalability of FAs between layers with the following obvious order:
L2SC, then TDM, then LSC, and then finally FSC.

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 40
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March 2002

11. Routing and Signaling Adjacencies

By definition, two nodes have signaling.

The aggregation is accomplished by (a) an LSR creating a routing (ISIS/OSPF) adjacency if
they are neighbors in TE LSP, (b)
the ISIS/OSPF sense.

By definition, two nodes have LSR forming a signaling (RSVP-TE/CR-LDP) forwarding adjacency
if they are neighbors in the RSVP-TE/CR-LDP sense. Nodes A and B are
RSVP-TE neighbors if they directly exchange RSVP-TE messages
(Path/Resv) (e.g., out of that LSP (advertising
this LSP as described in sections 7.1.1 a Traffic Engineering (TE) link into ISIS/OSPF), (c)
allowing other LSRs to use forwarding adjacencies for their path
computation, and 7.1.2 (d) nesting of
[HIERARCHY]). The neighbor relationship includes exchanging RSVP-TE
Hellos.

By definition, a Forwarding Adjacency (FA) is LSPs originated by other LSRs into
that LSP (e.g. by using the label stack construct in the case of
IP).

An LSR may (under its local configuration control) announce an LSP
as a TE Link between two
GMPLS nodes whose path transits one or more other (G)MPLS nodes in link into ISIS/OSPF. When this link is advertised into the
same instance of ISIS/OSPF as the (G)MPLS control plane. If two nodes have one or more non-FA TE Links between them, these two nodes are
expected (although not required) to have that determines the route
taken by the LSP, we call such a routing adjacency. If two
nodes do not have any non-FA TE Links between them, it is expected
(although not required) link a "forwarding adjacency" (FA).
We refer to the LSP as the "forwarding adjacency LSP", or just FA-
LSP. Note that these two nodes would not have since the advertised entity is a
routing adjacency. To state link in ISIS/OSPF,
both the obvious, if endpoint LSRs of the TE links between two
nodes are FA-LSP must belong to be used for establishing LSPs, the two nodes must have same ISIS
level/OSPF area (intra-area improvement of scalability).

In general, creation/termination of a signaling adjacency.

If one wants to establish routing and/or signaling adjacency between
two nodes, there must FA and its FA-LSP could be an IP path between them. This IP path can
be, for example, a TE Link with an interface switching capability
driven either by mechanisms outside of
PSC, anything that looks likes an IP link MPLS (e.g., GRE tunnel, via configuration
control on the LSR at the head-end of the adjacency), or by
mechanisms within MPLS (e.g., as a result of the LSR at the head-end
of the adjacency receiving LSP setup requests originated by some
other LSRs).

ISIS/OSPF floods the information about FAs just as it floods the
information about any other links. As a
(bi-directional) LSP that with an interface switching capability result of
PSC).

A this flooding, an
LSR has in its TE link may state database the information about not be capable of being used directly just
conventional links, but FAs as well.

An LSR, when performing path computation, uses not just conventional
links, but FAs as well. Once a path is computed, the LSR uses RSVP-
TE/CR-LDP for maintaining
routing and/or establishing label binding along the path. FAs need
simple extensions to signaling adjacencies. This is because GMPLS and routing protocols.

10.1. Routing and signaling Forwarding Adjacencies

Forwarding adjacencies requires exchanging data on a per (IP/ISO)
packet basis, and a TE link (e.g. a link between OXCs) may not be
capable of exchanging data on a per packet basis. In this case the
routing and signaling adjacencies are maintained via represented as either unnumbered or
numbered links. A FA can also be a set bundle of one or
more control channels (see [LMP]).

Two nodes may have LSPs between two nodes.

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft February 2003 41
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

FAs are advertised as GMPLS TE links such as defined in [HIERARCHY].
GMPLS TE links are advertised in OSPF and ISIS such as defined in
[OSPF-TE-GMPLS] and [ISIS-TE-GMPLS]. These last two specifications
enhance [OSPF-TE] and [ISIS-TE] that defines a base TE link between them even if they don't have link.

When a
routing adjacency. Naturally, FA is created dynamically, its TE attributes are inherited
from the FA-LSP that induced its creation. [HIERARCHY] specifies how
each node TE parameter of the FA is inherited from the FA-LSP. Note that
the bandwidth of the FA must run OSPF/ISIS with
GMPLS extensions in order for be at least as big as the FA-LSP that TE link to
induced it, but may be advertised. More
precisely, bigger if only discrete bandwidths are
available for the node needs to run GMPLS extensions FA-LSP. In general, for TE Links with
an interface switching capability (see [GMPLS-ROUTING]) other than
PSC, and it needs dynamically provisioned
forwarding adjacencies, a policy-based mechanism may be needed to run either GMPLS or MPLS extensions for TE
links
associate attributes to forwarding adjacencies.

A FA advertisement could contain the information about the path
taken by the FA-LSP associated with an interface switching capability of PSC.

The mechanisms that FA. Other LSRs may use this
information for Control Channel Separation [GMPLS-SIG] should be
used (even if the IP path between two nodes computation. This information is carried in a TE link). I.e.,
RSVP-TE/CR-LDP signaling should use
new OSPF and IS-IS TLV called the Interface_ID (IF_ID) object
to specify a particular TE link when establishing an LSP.

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 41
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March 2002

The IP Path TLV.

It is possible that the underlying path could consist of multiple IP hops. In this case, information might change
over time, via configuration updates, or dynamic route
modifications, resulting in the
mechanisms of sections 7.1.1 and 7.1.2 change of [HIERARCHY] should be used
(in addition to Control Channel Separation).

12. Control Plane Fault Handling

There that TLV.

If forwarding adjacencies are two major types bundled (via link bundling), and if
the resulting bundled link carries a Path TLV, the underlying path
followed by each of faults the FA-LSPs that can impact a control plane.
The first, referred to as control channel fault, relates to form the case
where control communication component links must
be the same.

It is lost expected that forwarding adjacencies will not be used for
establishing ISIS/OSPF peering relation between two neighboring nodes.
If the control channel is embedded routers at the
ends of the adjacency.

LSP hierarchy could exist both with the data channel, data
channel recovery procedure should solve peer and with the problem. If overlay
models. With the control
channel peer model the LSP hierarchy is independent realized via FAs
and an LSP is both created and used as a TE link by exactly the same
instance of the data channel additional procedures are
required to recover from that problem.

The second, referred to as nodal faults, relates to control plane. Creating LSP hierarchy with overlays
doesn't involve the case where a
node losses its concept of FA. With the overlay model an LSP
created (and maintained) by one instance of the GMPLS control state (e.g., after plane
is used as a restart) but does not
loose its data forwarding state.

In transport networks, such types TE link by another instance of the GMPLS control plane faults should not
have service impact on plane.
Moreover, the existing connections. Under such
circumstances, nodes using a mechanism must exist TE link are expected to detect have a control
communication failure routing
and a recovery procedure must guarantee
connection integrity at both ends signaling adjacency.

10.2. Signaling aspects

For the purpose of processing the control channel.

For a control channel fault, once communication explicit route in a Path/Request
message of an LSP that is restored routing
protocols are naturally able to recover but be tunneled over a forwarding
adjacency, an LSR at the underlying signaling
protocols must indicate that head-end of the nodes have maintained their state
through FA-LSP views the failure. The signaling protocol must also ensure that
any state changes that were instantiated during LSR at the failure
tail of that FA-LSP as adjacent (one IP hop away).

10.3. Cascading of Forwarding Adjacencies

With an integrated model several layers are
synchronized between controlled using the nodes.
same routing and signaling protocols. A network may then have links
with different multiplexing/demultiplexing capabilities. For

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft February 2003 42
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

example, a nodal fault, node may be able to multiplex/demultiplex individual
packets on a node's control plane restarts given link, and losses most
of it's state information. In this case, both upstream may be able to multiplex/demultiplex
channels within a SONET payload on other links.

A new OSPF and
downstream nodes must synchronize their state information with the
restarted node. In order for any resynchronization IS-IS sub-TLV has been defined to occur the node
undergoing advertise the restart will need to preserve some information, such
as it's mappings
multiplexing capability of incoming to outgoing labels.

These issues are addressed each interface: PSC, L2SC, TDM, LSC or
FSC. This sub-TLV is named the Link Multiplex Capability sub-TLV and
complements the sub-TLVs defined in protocol specific fashions, see [RSVP-
TE-GMPLS] [OSPF-TE-GMPLS] and [CR-LDP-GMPLS]. Note that these cases only apply [ISIS-TE-
GMPLS]. The information carried in this sub-TLV is used to construct
LSP regions, and determine region�s boundaries.

Path computation may take into account region boundaries when
there are mechanisms to detect data channel failures independent of
control channel failures.

The LDP Fault tolerant draft [LDP-FT] specifies
computing a path for an LSP. For example, path computation may
restrict the procedures path taken by an LSP to
recover from a control channel failure. [RSVP-TE-GMPLS] specifies
how only the links whose
multiplexing/demultiplexing capability is PSC. When an LSP need to recover from both
cross a control channel failure and region boundary, it can trigger the establishment of an FA
at the underlying layer (i.e. the L2SC layer). This can trigger a node
failure.

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 42
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March 2002

13. LSP Protection
cascading of FAs between layers with the following obvious order:
L2SC, then TDM, then LSC, and Restoration

This section discusses Protection then finally FSC.

11. Routing and Restoration (P&R) issues for
GMPLS LSPs. It is driven by the requirements outlined Signaling Adjacencies

By definition, two nodes have a routing (ISIS/OSPF) adjacency if
they are neighbors in [TEWG-
RESTORE] and some of the principles outlined ISIS/OSPF sense.

By definition, two nodes have a signaling (RSVP-TE/CR-LDP) adjacency
if they are neighbors in [MPLS-RECOVERY]. It
will be enhanced, as more GMPLS P&R mechanisms the RSVP-TE/CR-LDP sense. Nodes A and B are defined. The
scope
RSVP-TE neighbors if they directly exchange RSVP-TE messages
(Path/Resv) (e.g., as described in sections 7.1.1 and 7.1.2 of this section is clarified hereafter:

- This section
[HIERARCHY]). The neighbor relationship includes exchanging RSVP-TE
Hellos.

By definition, a Forwarding Adjacency (FA) is only applicable when a fault impacting LSP(s)
happens TE Link between two
GMPLS nodes whose path transits one or more other (G)MPLS nodes in
the data/transport plane. Section 11 deals with control
plane fault handling for nodal and control channel faults.

- This section focuses on P&R at same instance of the TDM, LSC and FSC layers. There
are specific P&R requirements at (G)MPLS control plane. If two nodes have
one or more non-FA TE Links between them, these layers two nodes are
expected (although not present at the
PSC layer.

- This section focuses on intra-area P&R as opposed required) to inter-area
P&R and even inter-domain P&R. Note have a routing adjacency. If two
nodes do not have any non-FA TE Links between them, it is expected
(although not required) that these two nodes would not have a
routing adjacency. To state the P&R can even obvious, if the TE links between two
nodes are to be more
restricted, e.g. used for establishing LSPs, the two nodes must have
a signaling adjacency.

If one wants to establish routing and/or signaling adjacency between
two nodes, there must be an IP path between them. This IP path can
be, for example, a collection TE Link with an interface switching capability of like customer equipment,
PSC, anything that looks likes an IP link (e.g., GRE tunnel, or a
collection
(bi-directional) LSP that with an interface switching capability of equipment
PSC).

A TE link may not be capable of being used directly for maintaining
routing and/or signaling adjacencies. This is because GMPLS routing
and signaling adjacencies requires exchanging data on a per (IP/ISO)
packet basis, and a TE link (e.g. a link between OXCs) may not be

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft February 2003 43
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

capable of like capabilities, in one single
routing area.

- This section focuses exchanging data on intra-layer P&R (horizontal hierarchy as
defined in [TEWG-RESTORE]) as opposed to the inter-layer P&R
(vertical hierarchy).

- P&R mechanisms are in general designed to handle single failures,
which makes SRLG diversity a necessity. Recovery from multiple
failures requires further study.

- Both mesh and ring like topologies are supported. per packet basis. In this case the following, we assume that:

- TDM, LSC
routing and FSC devices signaling adjacencies are more generally committing recovery
resources in maintained via a non best effort way. Recovery resources are either
allocated and used, or at least logically reserved (used set of one or not by
preemptable extra traffic but unavailable anyway for regular
working traffic).

- Shared P&R mechanisms are valuable to operators
more control channels (see [LMP]).

Two nodes may have a TE link between them even if they don't have a
routing adjacency. Naturally, each node must run OSPF/ISIS with
GMPLS extensions in order for that TE link to
maximize their network utilization.

- Sending preemptable excess traffic on recovery resources is a
valuable feature be advertised. More
precisely, the node needs to run GMPLS extensions for operators.

13.1. Protection escalation across domains TE Links with
an interface switching capability (see [GMPLS-ROUTING]) other than
PSC, and layers

To describe the P&R architecture, one must consider two dimensions
of hierarchy [TE-RESTORE]:

- A horizontal hierarchy consisting of multiple P&R domains, which
is important in it needs to run either GMPLS or MPLS extensions for TE
links with an LSP based protection scheme. The scope interface switching capability of P&R

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 43
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March 2002

may extend over PSC.

The mechanisms for Control Channel Separation [GMPLS-SIG] should be
used (even if the IP path between two nodes is a TE link). I.e.,
RSVP-TE/CR-LDP signaling should use the Interface_ID (IF_ID) object
to specify a particular TE link (or span), an administrative domain or sub-
network, when establishing an entire LSP.

An administrative domain may

The IP path could consist of a single P&R domain or as
a concatenation multiple IP hops. In this case, the
mechanisms of several smaller P&R domains. The operator can
configure P&R domains, based on customers' requirements, and on
network topology sections 7.1.1 and traffic engineering constraints.

- A vertical hierarchy consisting 7.1.2 of multiple layers [HIERARCHY] should be used
(in addition to Control Channel Separation).

12. Control Plane Fault Handling

There are two major types of P&R faults that can impact a control plane.
The first, referred to as control channel fault, relates to the case
where control communication is lost between two neighboring nodes.
If the control channel is embedded with
varying granularities (packet flows, STS trails, lightpaths,
fibers, etc). the data channel, data
channel recovery procedure should solve the problem. If the control
channel is independent of the data channel additional procedures are
required to recover from that problem.

The second, referred to as nodal faults, relates to the case where a
node losses its control state (e.g., after a restart) but does not
loose its data forwarding state.

In transport networks, such types of control plane faults should not
have service impact on the absence of adequate P&R coordination, existing connections. Under such
circumstances, a fault may propagate
from one level mechanism must exist to the next within detect a P&R hierarchy. It can lead to
"collisions" control
communication failure and simultaneous a recovery actions may lead to race
conditions, reduced resource utilization, or instabilities
[MANCHESTER]. Thus, procedure must guarantee
connection integrity at both ends of the control channel.

For a consistent escalation strategy control channel fault, once communication is needed restored routing
protocols are naturally able to
coordinate recovery across domains and layers. The fact recover but the underlying signaling
protocols must indicate that GMPLS
can be used at different layers could simplify this coordination.

There are two types of escalation strategies: bottom-up and top-
down. the nodes have maintained their state
through the failure. The bottom-up approach assumes signaling protocol must also ensure that "lower-level" recovery
schemes
any state changes that were instantiated during the failure are more expedient, and therefore we can inhibit or hold
off higher-level P&R. The Top-down approach attempts service P&R
at
synchronized between the higher levels before invoking "lower level" P&R. Higher-
layer P&R is service selective, nodes.

For a nodal fault, a node's control plane restarts and permits "per-CoS" or "per-LSP"
re-routing.

SLA's between network operators losses most
of it's state information. In this case, both upstream and
downstream nodes must synchronize their state information with the
restarted node. In order for any resynchronization to occur the node
undergoing the restart will need to preserve some information, such
as it's mappings of incoming to outgoing labels.

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft February 2003 44
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

These issues are addressed in protocol specific fashions, see [RSVP-
TE-GMPLS] and their clients [CR-LDP-GMPLS]. Note that these cases only apply when
there are needed mechanisms to
determine detect data channel failures independent of
control channel failures.

The LDP Fault tolerant draft [LDP-FT] specifies the necessary timescales procedures to
recover from a control channel failure. [RSVP-TE-GMPLS] specifies
how to recover from both a control channel failure and a node
failure.

13. LSP Protection and Restoration

This section discusses Protection and Restoration (P&R) issues for P&R at each layer
GMPLS LSPs. It is driven by the requirements outlined in [TEWG-
RESTORE] and at each
domain.

13.2. Mapping some of Services to the principles outlined in [MPLS-RECOVERY]. It
will be enhanced, as more GMPLS P&R Resources mechanisms are defined. The choice
scope of a P&R scheme this section is clarified hereafter:

- This section is only applicable when a tradeoff between network utilization
(cost) fault impacting LSP(s)
happens in the data/transport plane. Section 11 deals with control
plane fault handling for nodal and service interruption time. In light of this tradeoff,
network service providers control channel faults.

- This section focuses on P&R at the TDM, LSC and FSC layers. There
are expected to support a range of
different service offerings or service levels.

One can classify LSPs into one of a small set of service levels.
Among other things, specific P&R requirements at these service levels define the reliability
characteristics of layers not present at the LSP. The service level associated with a
given LSP is mapped
PSC layer.

- This section focuses on intra-area P&R as opposed to one or more inter-area
P&R schemes during LSP
establishment. An advantage that mapping is and even inter-domain P&R. Note that an LSP may use
different P&E schemes in different segments of a network (e.g. some
links may be span protected, whilst other segments of the LSP may
utilize ring protection). These details are likely to P&R can even be service
provider specific.

An alternative more
restricted, e.g. to using service levels is for an application a collection of like customer equipment, or a
collection of equipment of like capabilities, in one single
routing area.

- This section focuses on intra-layer P&R (horizontal hierarchy as
defined in [TEWG-RESTORE]) as opposed to
specify the set of specific inter-layer P&R
(vertical hierarchy).

- P&R mechanisms are in general designed to be used when
establishing handle single failures,
which makes SRLG diversity a necessity. Recovery from multiple
failures requires further study.

- Both mesh and ring like topologies are supported.

In the LSP. This allows greater flexibility following, we assume that:

- TDM, LSC and FSC devices are more generally committing recovery
resources in using
different a non best effort way. Recovery resources are either
allocated and used, or at least logically reserved (used or not by
preemptable extra traffic but unavailable anyway for regular
working traffic).

- Shared P&R mechanisms are valuable to meet the application requirements. operators in order to
maximize their network utilization.

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 44
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March February 2003 45
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

A differentiator between these service levels

- Sending preemptable excess traffic on recovery resources is service
interruption time in a
valuable feature for operators.

13.1. Protection escalation across domains and layers

To describe the event P&R architecture, one must consider two dimensions
of network failures, which is defined
as the length hierarchy [TE-RESTORE]:

- A horizontal hierarchy consisting of time between when a failure occurs and when
connectivity multiple P&R domains, which
is re-established. important in an LSP based protection scheme. The choice scope of service level (or P&R
scheme) should be dictated by the service requirements
may extend over a link (or span), an administrative domain or sub-
network, an entire LSP.

An administrative domain may consist of different
applications.

13.3. Classification a single P&R domain or as
a concatenation of several smaller P&R mechanism characteristics domains. The following figure provides a classification operator can
configure P&R domains, based on customers' requirements, and on
network topology and traffic engineering constraints.

- A vertical hierarchy consisting of multiple layers of P&R with
varying granularities (packet flows, STS trails, lightpaths,
fibers, etc).

In the possible
provisioning types absence of adequate P&R coordination, a fault may propagate
from one level to the next within a P&R hierarchy. It can lead to
"collisions" and simultaneous recovery LSPs, actions may lead to race
conditions, reduced resource utilization, or instabilities
[MANCHESTER]. Thus, a consistent escalation strategy is needed to
coordinate recovery across domains and of the levels of
overbooking layers. The fact that is possible for them.

+ Computed on +Established +--Resources pre
| demand | on demand | allocated
Recovery LSP | | |
Provisioning -+ Pre computed +Pre established +--Resources
allocated on
demand
+--Dedicated - 1:1, 1
|
|
+-- Shared - 1:N, Ring, Shared mesh
Level GMPLS
can be used at different layers could simplify this coordination.

There are two types of |
Overbooking ---+-- Best effort

13.4. Different Stages in P&R

Recovery from a network fault or impairment takes place in several
stages as discussed in [MPLS-RECOVERY], including fault detection,
fault localization, notification, escalation strategies: bottom-up and top-
down. The bottom-up approach assumes that "lower-level" recovery (i.e.
schemes are more expedient, and therefore we can inhibit or hold
off higher-level P&R. The Top-down approach attempts service P&R
at the higher levels before invoking "lower level" P&R. Higher-
layer P&R itself) is service selective, and
restoral (i.e. returning the traffic permits "per-CoS" or "per-LSP"
re-routing.

SLA's between network operators and their clients are needed to
determine the original working LSP or necessary timescales for P&R at each layer and at each
domain.

13.2. Mapping of Services to a new one) P&R Resources

The choice of traffic.

- Fault detection a P&R scheme is technology a tradeoff between network utilization
(cost) and implementation dependent. service interruption time. In
general, failures light of this tradeoff,
network service providers are detected by lower layer mechanisms (e.g.
SONET/SDH, Loss-of-Light (LOL)). When a node detects a failure, an
alarm may be passed up expected to support a GMPLS entity, which will take
appropriate actions, range of
different service offerings or the alarm may be propagated at the lower
layer (e.g. SONET/SDH AIS).

- Fault localization service levels.

One can be done with the help classify LSPs into one of GMPLS, e.g. using
LMP for fault localization (see section 8.4).

- Fault notification can also be achieved through GMPLS, e.g. using
GMPLS RSVP-TE/CR-LDP notification (see section 9.12).

- This section focuses on a small set of service levels.
Among other things, these service levels define the different mechanisms available for
recovery and restoral reliability
characteristics of traffic once fault detection,
localization and notification have taken place. the LSP. The service level associated with a
given LSP is mapped to one or more P&R schemes during LSP
establishment. An advantage that mapping is that an LSP may use

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 45
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March February 2003 46
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

13.5. Recovery Strategies

Network P&R techniques can

different P&E schemes in different segments of a network (e.g. some
links may be divided into Protection and
Restoration. In protection, resources between span protected, whilst other segments of the protection
endpoints LSP may
utilize ring protection). These details are established before failure, and connectivity after
failure likely to be service
provider specific.

An alternative to using service levels is achieved simply by switching performed at the protection
end-points. In contrast, restoration uses signaling after failure for an application to
allocate resources along the recovery path.

- Protection aims at extremely fast reaction times and may rely on
specify the use set of overhead control fields for achieving end-point
coordination. Protection for SONET/SDH networks is described in
[G.841] and [ANSI-T1.105]. Protection specific P&R mechanisms can to be further
classified by used when
establishing the level of redundancy and sharing.

- Restoration LSP. This allows greater flexibility in using
different mechanisms rely on signaling protocols to coordinate
switching actions during recovery, and may involve simple re-
provisioning, i.e. signaling only at meet the application requirements.

A differentiator between these service levels is service
interruption time in the event of network failures, which is defined
as the length of time between when a failure occurs and when
connectivity is re-established. The choice of recovery; or pre-
signaling, i.e., signaling prior to recovery.

In addition, service level (or P&R can
scheme) should be applied on a local or end-to-end basis. In dictated by the local approach, service requirements of different
applications.

13.3. Classification of P&R is focused on the local proximity mechanism characteristics

The following figure provides a classification of the
fault in order to reduce delay in restoring service. In the end-to-
end approach, the LSP originating possible
provisioning types of recovery LSPs, and terminating nodes control
recovery.

Using these strategies, of the following recovery mechanisms can be
defined.

Editor's note: for each mechanism hereafter, it levels of
overbooking that is intended to add
references to the appropriate GMPLS and/or technology specific
mechanisms.

13.6. possible for them.

+ Computed on +Established +--Resources pre
| demand | on demand | allocated
Recovery mechanisms: Protection schemes

Note that protection schemes are usually defined in technology
specific ways, but this does not preclude other solutions. LSP | | |
Provisioning -+ Pre computed +Pre established +--Resources
allocated on
demand
+--Dedicated - 1+1 Link Protection: Two pre-provisioned resources are used 1:1, 1
|
|
+-- Shared - 1:N, Ring, Shared mesh
Level of |
Overbooking ---+-- Best effort

13.4. Different Stages in
parallel. For example, data is transmitted simultaneously on two
parallel links and P&R

Recovery from a selector is used at network fault or impairment takes place in several
stages as discussed in [MPLS-RECOVERY], including fault detection,
fault localization, notification, recovery (i.e. the receiving node P&R itself) and
restoral (i.e. returning the traffic to
choose the best source. [Mechanisms reference original working LSP or
to be added]. a new one) of traffic.

- 1:N Link Protection: Working Fault detection is technology and protecting resources (N working,
1 backup) implementation dependent. In
general, failures are pre-provisioned. If detected by lower layer mechanisms (e.g.
SONET/SDH, Loss-of-Light (LOL)). When a working resource fails, the
data is switched to the protecting resource, using node detects a coordination
mechanism (e.g. in overhead bytes). More generally, N working and
M protecting resources can failure, an
alarm may be assigned for M:N link protection.
[Mechanisms reference passed up to a GMPLS entity, which will take
appropriate actions, or the alarm may be added]. propagated at the lower
layer (e.g. SONET/SDH AIS).

- Enhanced Protection: Various mechanisms such as protection rings Fault localization can be used to enhance done with the level help of protection beyond single link
failures to include the ability to switch around a node failure or
multiple link failures within a span, based on a pre-established GMPLS, e.g. using
LMP for fault localization (see section 8.4).

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 46
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March February 2003 47
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

topology of protection resources. [Mechanisms reference to be
added].

- 1+1 LSP Protection: Simultaneous data transmission on working and
protecting LSPs and tail-end selection Fault notification can also be applied. [Mechanisms
reference to be added].

13.7. Recovery mechanisms: Restoration schemes

Restoration is possible thanks to the use of a distributed control
plane like achieved through GMPLS, e.g. using
GMPLS in multiple of tenths of ms. It is much harder to
achieve when only an NMS is used, RSVP-TE/CR-LDP notification (see section 9.12).

- This section focuses on the different mechanisms available for
recovery and can only be done in that case
in a multiple restoral of seconds.

- End-to-end LSP restoration with re-provisioning: An end-to-end
restoration path is established after failure. The restoration
path may traffic once fault detection,
localization and notification have taken place.

13.5. Recovery Strategies

Network P&R techniques can be dynamically calculated after failure, or pre-
calculated before failure (often during LSP establishment).
Importantly, no signaling is used along divided into Protection and
Restoration. In protection, resources between the restoration path protection
endpoints are established before failure, and no restoration bandwidth is reserved. As a
result, there connectivity after
failure is no guarantee that a given achieved simply by switching performed at the protection
end-points. In contrast, restoration path is
available when a uses signaling after failure occurs. Thus one may have to crankback to
search for an available
allocate resources along the recovery path. [Mechanisms reference to be added].

- End-to-end LSP restoration with pre-signaled recovery bandwidth
reservation Protection aims at extremely fast reaction times and no label pre-selection: An end-to-end restoration
path may rely on
the use of overhead control fields for achieving end-point
coordination. Protection for SONET/SDH networks is pre-calculated before failure described in
[G.841] and a signaling message is
sent along this pre-selected path to reserve bandwidth, but labels
are not selected. [Mechanisms reference to [ANSI-T1.105]. Protection mechanisms can be added].

The resources reserved on each link further
classified by the level of a restoration path redundancy and sharing.

- Restoration mechanisms rely on signaling protocols to coordinate
switching actions during recovery, and may be
shared across different working LSPs that are not expected involve simple re-
provisioning, i.e. signaling only at the time of recovery; or pre-
signaling, i.e., signaling prior to fail
simultaneously. Local node policies recovery.

In addition, P&R can be applied to define on a local or end-to-end basis. In
the
degree to which capacity is shared across independent failures.
Upon failure detection, LSP signaling local approach, P&R is initiated along focused on the
restoration path local proximity of the
fault in order to select labels, reduce delay in restoring service. In the end-to-
end approach, the LSP originating and terminating nodes control
recovery.

Using these strategies, the following recovery mechanisms can be
defined.

Editor's note: for each mechanism hereafter, it is intended to add
references to initiate the appropriate
cross-connections. GMPLS and/or technology specific
mechanisms.

13.6. Recovery mechanisms: Protection schemes

Note that protection schemes are usually defined in technology
specific ways, but this does not preclude other solutions.

- 1+1 Link Protection: Two pre-provisioned resources are used in
parallel. For example, data is transmitted simultaneously on two
parallel links and a selector is used at the receiving node to
choose the best source. [Mechanisms reference to be added].

- End-to-end LSP restoration with pre-signaled recovery bandwidth
reservation and label pre-selection: An end-to-end restoration
path is pre-calculated before failure 1:N Link Protection: Working and protecting resources (N working,
1 backup) are pre-provisioned. If a signaling procedure is
initiated along this pre-selected path on which bandwidth working resource fails, the
data is
reserved switched to the protecting resource, using a coordination
mechanism (e.g. in overhead bytes). More generally, N working and labels are selected. Resources reserved on each link
may

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft February 2003 48
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

M protecting resources can be shared across different working LSPs that are not expected assigned for M:N link protection.
[Mechanisms reference to fail simultaneously. In networks based on TDM, LSC and FSC
technology, LSP signaling is be added].

- Enhanced Protection: Various mechanisms such as protection rings
can be used after failure detection to
establish cross-connections at the intermediate switches on enhance the
restoration path using level of protection beyond single link
failures to include the pre-selected labels. ability to switch around a node failure or
multiple link failures within a span, based on a pre-established
topology of protection resources. [Mechanisms reference to be
added].

- Local 1+1 LSP restoration: the above approaches Protection: Simultaneous data transmission on working and
protecting LSPs and tail-end selection can be applied on a
local basis rather than end-to-end, in order to reduce recovery
time. applied. [Mechanisms
reference to be added].

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 47
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March 2002

13.8. Schema selection criteria

This section discusses criteria that could be used by

13.7. Recovery mechanisms: Restoration schemes

Restoration is possible thanks to the operator use of a distributed control
plane like GMPLS in order multiple of tenths of ms. It is much harder to make
achieve when only an NMS is used, and can only be done in that case
in a choice among the various P&R mechanisms.

- Robustness: In general, the less pre-planning multiple of the seconds.

- End-to-end LSP restoration
path, the more robust with re-provisioning: An end-to-end
restoration path is established after failure. The restoration
path may be dynamically calculated after failure, or pre-
calculated before failure (often during LSP establishment).
Importantly, no signaling is used along the restoration scheme path
before failure, and no restoration bandwidth is to reserved. As a variety of
failures, provided that adequate resources are available.
Restoration schemes with pre-planned paths, will not be able to
recover from network failures
result, there is no guarantee that simultaneously affect both the
working and a given restoration paths. Thus, these paths should ideally be
chosen path is
available when a failure occurs. Thus one may have to crankback to
search for an available path. [Mechanisms reference to be as disjoint as possible (i.e. SRLG added].

- End-to-end LSP restoration with pre-signaled recovery bandwidth
reservation and node
disjoint), so that any single failure event will not affect both
paths. The risk of simultaneous failure of the two paths can be
reduced by recalculating the no label pre-selection: An end-to-end restoration
path whenever a is pre-calculated before failure
occurs and a signaling message is
sent along it. this pre-selected path to reserve bandwidth, but labels
are not selected. [Mechanisms reference to be added].

The pre-selection resources reserved on each link of a label gives less flexiblity for multiple
failure scenarios than no label pre-selection. If failures occur
that affect two restoration path may be
shared across different working LSPs that are sharing a label at a common not expected to fail
simultaneously. Local node
along their restoration routes, then only one of these LSPs policies can be
recovered, unless applied to define the label assignment
degree to which capacity is changed.

The robustness of a restoration scheme shared across independent failures.
Upon failure detection, LSP signaling is also determined by the
amount of reserved restoration bandwidth - as initiated along the amount of
restoration bandwidth sharing increases (reserved bandwidth
decreases), path to select labels, and to initiate the restoration scheme becomes less robust appropriate
cross-connections. [Mechanisms reference to
failures. Restoration schemes be added].

- End-to-end LSP restoration with pre-signaled recovery bandwidth
reservation (with or without and label pre-selection) can reserve
adequate bandwidth to ensure recovery from any specific set of
failure events, such as any single SRLG failure, any two SRLG
failures etc. Clearly, more pre-selection: An end-to-end restoration capacity
path is allocated if a
greater degree of pre-calculated before failure recovery and a signaling procedure is required. Thus, the degree
to
initiated along this pre-selected path on which the network is protected bandwidth is determined by the policy that
defines the amount of
reserved restoration bandwidth.

- Recovery time: and labels are selected. Resources reserved on each link
may be shared across different working LSPs that are not expected
to fail simultaneously. In general, networks based on TDM, LSC and FSC
technology, LSP signaling is used after failure detection to
establish cross-connections at the more pre-planning of intermediate switches on the

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft February 2003 49
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

restoration route, the more rapid path using the P&R scheme. Protection
schemes generally recover faster than restoration schemes.
Restoration with pre-signaled bandwidth reservation are likely pre-selected labels. [Mechanisms
reference to be (significantly) faster than path restoration with re-
provisioning, especially because of the elimination of any
crankback. added].

- Local restoration will generally LSP restoration: the above approaches can be faster applied on a
local basis rather than end-to-
end schemes.

Recovery time objectives for SONET/SDH protection switching (not
including time to detect failure) are specified end-to-end, in [G.841] at 50
ms, taking into account constraints on distance, number of
connections involved, and order to reduce recovery
time. [Mechanisms reference to be added].

13.8. Schema selection criteria

This section discusses criteria that could be used by the operator
in order to make a choice among the case of ring enhanced protection,
number various P&R mechanisms.

- Robustness: In general, the less pre-planning of nodes in the ring.

Recovery time objectives for restoration mechanisms are being
defined through
path, the more robust the restoration scheme is to a separate effort [TE-RESTORE].

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 48
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March 2002

- Resource Sharing: 1+1 and 1:N link variety of
failures, provided that adequate resources are available.
Restoration schemes with pre-planned paths, will not be able to
recover from network failures that simultaneously affect both the
working and LSP protection require
dedicated recovery restoration paths. Thus, these paths with limited ability should ideally be
chosen to share resources:
1+1 allows no sharing, 1:N allows some sharing of protection
resources be as disjoint as possible (i.e. SRLG and support node
disjoint), so that any single failure event will not affect both
paths. The risk of extra (preemptable) traffic. Flexibility
is limited because simultaneous failure of topology restrictions, e.g. fixed ring
topology for traditional enhanced protection schemes.

The degree to which restoration schemes allow sharing amongst
multiple independent failures is directly dictated by the size of two paths can be
reduced by recalculating the restoration pool. In restoration schemes with re-provisioning, path whenever a pool failure
occurs along it.

The pre-selection of a label gives less flexiblity for multiple
failure scenarios than no label pre-selection. If failures occur
that affect two LSPs that are sharing a label at a common node
along their restoration capacity routes, then only one of these LSPs can be defined from which all
restoration routes are selected after failure. Thus,
recovered, unless the degree label assignment is changed.

The robustness of
sharing a restoration scheme is defined also determined by the
amount of available restoration
capacity. In reserved restoration with pre-signaled bandwidth reservation, - as the amount of reserved
restoration capacity is determined by the
local bandwidth reservation policies. In all restoration schemes,
pre-emptable resources can use spare sharing increases (reserved bandwidth
decreases), the restoration capacity when
that capacity is not being used for failure recovery.

14. Network Management

Service Providers (SPs) use network management extensively to
configure, monitor or provision various devices in their network. It
is important to note that a SP�s equipment may be distributed across
geographically separate sites, making distributed management even
more important. The service provider should utilize an NMS system
and standard management protocols such as SNMP [RFC1901] [RFC1902]
[RFC1903] [RFC1904] [RFC1905] [RFC1906] and its associated MIBs as
standard interfaces to configure, monitor and provision devices at
various locations. The service provider may also wish scheme becomes less robust to use the
command line interface (CLI) provided by vendors
failures. Restoration schemes with their devices,
but this however, is not a standard pre-signaled bandwidth
reservation (with or recommended solution due without label pre-selection) can reserve
adequate bandwidth to
the fact that there is no standard CLI language or interface, which
results in N different CLI�s in a network with devices ensure recovery from N
different vendors. In the context any specific set of
failure events, such as any single SRLG failure, any two SRLG
failures etc. Clearly, more restoration capacity is allocated if a
greater degree of GMPLS, it failure recovery is extremely
important for standard interfaces to required. Thus, the SP�s devices (SNMP) to
exist due degree
to which the nature network is protected is determined by the policy that
defines the amount of reserved restoration bandwidth.

- Recovery time: In general, the technology itself. Since GMPLS
comprises many different layers more pre-planning of control-plane and data-plane
technology, it is important for management interfaces in this area the
restoration route, the more rapid the P&R scheme. Protection
schemes generally recover faster than restoration schemes.
Restoration with pre-signaled bandwidth reservation are likely to
be flexible enough to allow (significantly) faster than path restoration with re-
provisioning, especially because of the manager elimination of any
crankback. Local restoration will generally be faster than end-to-
end schemes.

Recovery time objectives for SONET/SDH protection switching (not
including time to manage GMPLS easily, detect failure) are specified in [G.841] at 50

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft February 2003 50
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

ms, taking into account constraints on distance, number of
connections involved, and in a standard way.

14.1. Network Management Systems (NMS)

The NMS system should maintain the collective information about each
device within case of ring enhanced protection,
number of nodes in the system. Note that ring.

Recovery time objectives for restoration mechanisms are being
defined through a separate effort [TE-RESTORE].

- Resource Sharing: 1+1 and 1:N link and LSP protection require
dedicated recovery paths with limited ability to share resources:
1+1 allows no sharing, 1:N allows some sharing of protection
resources and support of extra (preemptable) traffic. Flexibility
is limited because of topology restrictions, e.g. fixed ring
topology for traditional enhanced protection schemes.

The degree to which restoration schemes allow sharing amongst
multiple independent failures is directly dictated by the NMS system may actually be
comprised size of several distributed applications (i.e.: alarm
aggregators, configuration consoles, polling applications, etc...)
that collectively comprises
the SP�s NMS. restoration pool. In this way, it can make
provisioning and maintenance decisions restoration schemes with the full knowledge re-provisioning,
a pool of
the entire SP network. Configuration or provisioning information
(i.e.: requests for new services) could restoration capacity can be entered into the NMS and
subsequently distributed via SNMP to the remote devices, making defined from which all
restoration routes are selected after failure. Thus, the
SP�s job degree of managing
sharing is defined by the network much more compact and effortless

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 49
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March 2002

than having to manage each device individually (i.e.: via CLI).
Security and access control can be achieved through amount of available restoration
capacity. In restoration with pre-signaled bandwidth reservation,
the use amount of
SNMPv3 and reserved restoration capacity is determined by the View Access Control Model [SNMPv3VACM]. This approach
local bandwidth reservation policies. In all restoration schemes,
pre-emptable resources can be very effectively use spare restoration capacity when
that capacity is not being used within an SP network, since the SP has
access for failure recovery.

14. Network Management

14.2. Management Information Base (MIB) recommended solution due to
the fact that there is no standard CLI language or interface, which
results in N different CLI�s in a network with devices from N
different vendors. In the context of GMPLS, it is extremely
important for standard interfaces to the SP�s devices (SNMP) to
exist due to the nature of the technology itself. Since GMPLS
comprises many different layers of control-plane and data-plane
technology, it is important for SNMP MIBs management interfaces in this area
to be flexible enough to allow the manager to manage the entire control
plane. This should be through a set of MIBs that may cooperate
(i.e.: coordinated row-creation on the agent), or through more
generalized MIBs that aggregate some of the desired actions to be
taken GMPLS easily,
and push those details down to the devices. It is important to
note that in certain circumstances, it may be necessary to duplicate
some small subset of manageable objects in new MIBs for the
convenience of management. Control of some parts of GMPLS may also
be achieved though a standard way.

14.1. Network Management Systems (NMS)

The NMS system should maintain the use of existing MIB interfaces (i.e.:
existing SONET MIB), or though separate ones, which are yet to be
defined. MIBs may have been previously defined in collective information about each
device within the IETF or ITU.
Existing MIBs system. Note that the NMS system may need to actually be extended to facilitate some
comprised of several distributed applications (i.e.: alarm

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft February 2003 51
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

aggregators, configuration consoles, polling applications, etc...)
that collectively comprises the new
functionality desired by GMPLS. SP�s NMS. In these cases, the working group
should work on new versions of these MIBs so that these extensions this way, it can be added.

14.3. Tools

As in traditional networks, standard tools such as traceroute
[RFC1393] and ping [RFC1739] are needed for debugging and
performance monitoring of GMPLS networks, make
provisioning and mainly for the control
plane topology that will mimic maintenance decisions with the data plane topology. Furthermore,
such tools provide network reachability information. The GMPLS
control protocols will need to expose certain pieces full knowledge of
the entire SP network. Configuration or provisioning information
in order
(i.e.: requests for these tools to function properly new services) could be entered into the NMS and
subsequently distributed via SNMP to provide
information germane the remote devices, making the
SP�s job of managing the network much more compact and effortless
than having to GMPLS. These tools should be made available manage each device individually (i.e.: via CLI).
Security and access control can be achieved through the CLI. These tools should also use of
SNMPv3 and the View Access Control Model [SNMPv3VACM]. This approach
can be made available for remote
invocation via very effectively used within an SP network, since the SNMP interface [RFC2925].

14.4. Fault Correlation Between Multiple Layers

Due SP has
access to and control over all devices within its domain.
Standardized MIBs will need to the nature of GMPLS and the fact that potential layers may be
involved developed before this approach can
be used ubiquitously to provision, configure and monitor devices in
non-heterogeneous networks or across SP boundaries.

14.2. Management Information Base (MIB)

In the control and transmission context of GMPLS data and control
information, GMPLS, it is therefore required that a fault in one layer be
passed extremely important for standard
interfaces to the adjacent higher and lower layers in an effort devices to
notify them of the fault. However, exist due to the nature of these the technology
itself. Since GMPLS comprises many
layers, it is possible and even probable, that hundreds or even
thousands different layers of notifications may need to transpire between layers.
This control-plane
technology, it is undesirable important for several reasons. First, these notifications

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 50
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March 2002

will overwhelm the device. Second, if the device(s) are programmed
to emit SNMP Notifications [RFC1901] then the large number of
notifications MIBs in this area to be
flexible enough to allow the device may attempt manager to emit may overwhelm manage the
network with entire control
plane. This should be through a storm set of notifications. Furthermore, even if the
device emits the notifications, the NMS MIBs that must process these
notifications will either be overwhelmed, or will be processing
redundant information. That is, if 1000 interfaces at layer B are
stacked above a single interface below it at layer A, and the
interface at A goes down, may cooperate
(i.e.: coordinated row-creation on the interfaces at layer B should not emit
notifications. Instead, agent), or through more
generalized MIBs that aggregate some of the interface at layer A should emit a
single notification. The NMS receiving this notification should desired actions to be
able
taken and push those details down to correlate the fact devices. It is important to
note that this interface has many others
stacked above in certain circumstances, it and take appropriate action, if necessary.

Devices that support GMPLS should provide mechanisms for
aggregating, summarizing, enabling and disabling may be necessary to duplicate
some small subset of inter-layer
notifications manageable objects in new MIBs for the reasons described above. In the context
convenience of management. Control of some parts of
SNMP MIBs, all MIBs that are used by GMPLS must provide
enable/disable objects for all notification objects. Furthermore,
these MIBs must may also provide notification summarization objects or
functionality (as described above) as well. NMS systems and standard
tools which process notifications or keep track of the many layers
on any given devices must
be capable of processing achieved though the vast amount use of information existing MIB interfaces (i.e.:
existing SONET MIB), or though separate ones, which are yet to be
defined. MIBs may potentially have been previously defined in the IETF or ITU.
Existing MIBs may need to be emitted extended to facilitate some of the new
functionality desired by network devices
running GMPLS at any point in time.

15. Security considerations

GMPLS defines a GMPLS. In these cases, the working group
should work on new control plane architecture for multiple types versions of
network elements. In general, since LSPs established using GMPLS these MIBs so that these extensions
can be added.

14.3. Tools

As in traditional networks, standard tools such as traceroute
[RFC1393] and ping [RFC1739] are
expected to carry high volumes needed for debugging and
performance monitoring of data GMPLS networks, and consume significant
network resources, security mechanisms are required to safeguard the
underlying network against attacks on mainly for the control
plane and/or
unauthorized usage of data transport resources.

Security requirements depend on the level of trust between nodes topology that exchange GMPLS control messages as well as the exposure of will mimic the
control channel to third parties. In general, a data plane topology. Furthermore,
such tools provide network node may
apply more relaxed security requirements when exchanging reachability information. The GMPLS
control messages with nodes under the same administrative domain
than when talking protocols will need to nodes expose certain pieces of information
in a different domain. In this respect,
network order for these tools to user (UNI) function properly and network-to-network interfaces are expected to have higher security requirements than node-to-node interfaces.

Security mechanisms can provide two main properties: authentication
and confidentiality. Authentication can provide origin verification,
message integrity and replay protection, while confidentiality
ensures that a third party cannot decipher the contents of a
message. In situations where GMPLS deployment requires primarily
authentication, the respective authentication mechanisms of the
GMPLS component protocols may
information germane to GMPLS. These tools should be used ([RFC2747], [LDP], [RFC2385],
[LMP]). Additionally, made available
via the IPSEC suite of protocols ([RFC2402],
[RFC2406], [RFC2409]) may CLI. These tools should also be used to provide authentication,
confidentiality or both, made available for a GMPLS control channel; this option remote
invocation via the SNMP interface [RFC2925].

14.4. Fault Correlation Between Multiple Layers

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 51
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March February 2003 52
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

offers

Due to the benefit of combined protection nature of all GMPLS component
protocols.

Note however and the fact that GMPLS itself introduces no new security
considerations to potential layers may be
involved in the current MPLS-TE signaling (RSVP-TE, CR-LDP),
routing protocols (OSPF-TE, IS-IS-TE) or network management
protocols (SNMP).

16. Acknowledgements

This draft control and transmission of GMPLS data and control
information, it is therefore required that a fault in one layer be
passed to the work of numerous authors adjacent higher and consists lower layers in an effort to
notify them of a
composition the fault. However, due to nature of a number these many
layers, it is possible and even probable, that hundreds or even
thousands of previous drafts in this area.

Many thanks notifications may need to Ben Mack-Crane (Tellabs) transpire between layers.
This is undesirable for all several reasons. First, these notifications
will overwhelm the useful SDH/SONET
discussions that we had together. Thanks also device. Second, if the device(s) are programmed
to Pedro Falcao,
Alexandre Geyssens, Michael Moelants, Xavier Neerdaels, and Philippe
Noel from Ebone for their SDH/SONET and optical technical advice and
support. Finally, many thanks also emit SNMP Notifications [RFC1901] then the large number of
notifications the device may attempt to Krishna Mitra (Calient) emit may overwhelm the
network with a storm of notifications. Furthermore, even if the
device emits the notifications, the NMS that must process these
notifications will either be overwhelmed, or will be processing
redundant information. That is, if 1000 interfaces at layer B are
stacked above a single interface below it at layer A, and
Curtis Villamizar (Avici). the
interface at A goes down, the interfaces at layer B should not emit
notifications. Instead, the interface at layer A list of should emit a
single notification. The NMS receiving this notification should be
able to correlate the drafts from which material fact that this interface has many others
stacked above it and ideas were incorporated
follows:

[GMPLS-SIG] draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-07.txt
Generalized MPLS - Signaling Functional Description

[RSVP-TE-GMPLS] draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-06.txt
Generalized MPLS Signaling - RSVP-TE Extensions

[CR-LDP-GMPLS] draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-05.txt
Generalized MPLS Signaling - CR-LDP Extensions

[SONETSDH-GMPLS] draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-03.txt take appropriate action, if necessary.

Devices that support GMPLS Extensions should provide mechanisms for SONET and SDH Control

[SONETSDH-EXT-GMPLS] draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-
01.txt. GMPLS Extensions to Control Non-Standard
SONET
aggregating, summarizing, enabling and SDH Features

[G709-GMPLS] draft-fontana-ccamp-gmpls-g709-01.txt
GMPLS Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical
Transport Networks Control

[LMP] draft-ietf-mpls-lmp-02.txt
Link Management Protocol (LMP)

[LMP-WDM] draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-wdm-00.txt
LMP for WDM Optical Line Systems (LMP-WDM)

[HIERARCHY] draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-04.txt
LSP Hierarchy with MPLS TE

[RSVP-TE-UNNUM] draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-unnum-04.txt
Signalling Unnumbered Links in RSVP-TE

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 52
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March 2002

[CR-LDP-UNNUM] draft-ietf-mpls-crldp-unnum-04.txt
Signalling Unnumbered Links in CR-LDP

[BUNDLE] draft-ietf-mpls-bundle-01.txt
Link Bundling in MPLS Traffic Engineering

[GMPLS-ROUTING] draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-02.txt
Routing Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS

[OSPF-TE-GMPLS] draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-04.txt
OSPF Extensions in Support disabling of Generalized MPLS

[ISIS-TE-GMPLS] draft-ietf-isis-gmpls-extensions-08.txt
IS-IS Extensions in Support inter-layer
notifications for the reasons described above. In the context of Generalized MPLS

17. References

[RFC1393] G. Malkin, "Traceroute Using an IP Option", IETF
RFC 1393, January 1993.

[RFC1901] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and S.
Waldbusser, "Introduction to Community-based
SNMPv2", IETF RFC 1901, January 1996.

[RFC1902] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M.,
SNMP MIBs, all MIBs that are used by GMPLS must provide
enable/disable objects for all notification objects. Furthermore,
these MIBs must also provide notification summarization objects or
functionality (as described above) as well. NMS systems and S.
Waldbusser, "Structure standard
tools which process notifications or keep track of Management Information for
Version 2 the many layers
on any given devices must be capable of processing the Simple Network Management Protocol
(SNMPv2)", IETF RFC 1901, January 1996.

[RFC1903] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and S.
Waldbusser, "Textual Conventions vast amount
of information which may potentially be emitted by network devices
running GMPLS at any point in time.

15. Security considerations

GMPLS defines a new control plane architecture for Version 2 multiple types of the
Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)",
IETF RFC 1901, January 1996.

[RFC1904] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M.,
network elements. In general, since LSPs established using GMPLS are
expected to carry high volumes of data and S.
Waldbusser, "Conformance Statements for Version 2 consume significant
network resources, security mechanisms are required to safeguard the
underlying network against attacks on the control plane and/or
unauthorized usage of data transport resources.

Security requirements depend on the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)",
IETF RFC 1901, January 1996.

[RFC1905] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and S.
Waldbusser, "Protocol Operations for Version 2 level of trust between nodes
that exchange GMPLS control messages as well as the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)",
IETF RFC 1905, January 1996.

[RFC1906] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and S.
Waldbusser, "Transport Mappings for Version 2 exposure of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)",
IETF RFC 1906, January 1996.

[SNMPv3VACM] Wijnen, B., Presuhn, R.,
control channel to third parties. In general, a network node may
apply more relaxed security requirements when exchanging GMPLS
control messages with nodes under the same administrative domain
than when talking to nodes in a different domain. In this respect,
network to user (UNI) and K. McCloghrie, "View-
based Access Control Model (VACM) for the Simple
Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", IETF RFC 2575,
April 1999. network-to-network interfaces are expected
to have higher security requirements than node-to-node interfaces.

Security mechanisms can provide two main properties: authentication
and confidentiality. Authentication can provide origin verification,

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 February 2003 53
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

[RFC1739] G. Kessler, S. Shepard , "A Primer On Internet

message integrity and
TCP/IP Tools", RFC1739, December 1994.

[RFC2328] J. Moy, "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, Standard
Track, April 1998.

[RFC2370] R. Coltun, "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 2370
Standard Track, July 1998.

[RFC2385] A. Heffernan, "Protection replay protection, while confidentiality
ensures that a third party cannot decipher the contents of a
message. In situations where GMPLS deployment requires primarily
authentication, the respective authentication mechanisms of the
GMPLS component protocols may be used ([RFC2747], [RFC3036],
[RFC2385], [LMP]). Additionally, the IPSEC suite of protocols
([RFC2402], [RFC2406], [RFC2409]) may be used to provide
authentication, confidentiality or both, for a GMPLS control
channel; this option offers the benefit of combined protection of
all GMPLS component protocols.

Note however that GMPLS itself introduces no new security
considerations to the current MPLS-TE signaling (RSVP-TE, CR-LDP),
routing protocols (OSPF-TE, IS-IS-TE) or network management
protocols (SNMP).

16. Acknowledgements

This draft is the work of numerous authors and consists of a
composition of BGP Sessions via a number of previous drafts in this area.

Many thanks to Ben Mack-Crane (Tellabs) for all the TCP
MD5 Signature Option," IETF RFC 2385.

[RFC2402] S. Kent useful SDH/SONET
discussions that we had together. Thanks also to Pedro Falcao,
Alexandre Geyssens, Michael Moelants, Xavier Neerdaels, and R. Atkinson, "IP Authentication Header,"
RFC 2402.

[RFC2406] S. Kent Philippe
Noel from Ebone for their SDH/SONET and R. Atkinson, "IP Encapsulating Security
Payload (ESP)," IETF RFC 2406.

[RFC2409] D. Harkins optical technical advice and D. Carrel, "The Internet Key Exchange
(IKE)", IETF RFC 2409.

[RFC2747] F. Baker et al., "RSVP Cryptographic Authentication",
IETF RFC 2747.

[RFC2925] K. White, "Definitions
support. Finally, many thanks also to Krishna Mitra (Calient) and
Curtis Villamizar (Avici).

A list of Managed Objects for Remote
Ping, Traceroute, the drafts from which material and Lookup Operations", IETF RFC
2925, September 2000.

[RFC3031] E. Rosen, A. Viswanathan, R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
Label Switching Architecture", IETF RFC 3031, January
2001.

[RFC3032] E. Rosen, D. Tappan, G. Fedorkow, Y. Rekhter, D.
Farinacci, T. Li, A. Conta, " ideas were incorporated
follows:

[GMPLS-SIG] draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-07.txt
Generalized MPLS Label Stack
Encoding", IETF RFC 3032, January 2001.

[LPD] L. Andersson, P. Doolan, N. Feldman, A. Fredette,
B. Thomas, "LDP Specification", IETF RFC 3036, January
2001.

[OSPF-TE] D. Katz, D. Yeung, and K. Kompella, "Traffic
Engineering - Signaling Functional Description

[RSVP-TE-GMPLS] draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-06.txt
Generalized MPLS Signaling - RSVP-TE Extensions to OSPF", draft-katz-yeung-ospf-
traffic-05.txt.

[MPLS-TEO] D. Awduche et al., "Multi-Protocol Lambda Switching:
Combining

[CR-LDP-GMPLS] draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-05.txt
Generalized MPLS Traffic Engineering Control With Optical
Crossconnects," Internet Draft, Work in Progress,
draft-awduche-mpls-te-optical-03.txt, April 2001.

[G.841] ITU-T Recommendation G.841, "Types Signaling - CR-LDP Extensions

[SONETSDH-GMPLS] draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-03.txt
GMPLS Extensions for SONET and Characteristics
of SDH Network Protection Architectures," July 1995. Control

[SONETSDH-EXT-GMPLS] draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-
01.txt. GMPLS Extensions to Control Non-Standard
SONET and SDH Features

[G709-GMPLS] draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-01.txt
GMPLS Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical
Transport Networks Control

[LMP] draft-ietf-mpls-lmp-02.txt
Link Management Protocol (LMP)

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 February 2003 54
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

[ANSI-T1.105] "Synchronous

[LMP-WDM] draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-wdm-00.txt
LMP for WDM Optical Network (SONET): Basic
Description Including Multiplex Structure, Rates, and
Formats" ANSI T1.105, 2000.

[TE-RESTORE] W. Lai, D. McDysan, J. Boyle, et al, "Network Line Systems (LMP-WDM)

[HIERARCHY] draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-04.txt
LSP Hierarchy
and Multi-layer Survivability", Internet Draft, Work with MPLS TE

[RSVP-TE-UNNUM] draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-unnum-04.txt
Signalling Unnumbered Links in RSVP-TE

[CR-LDP-UNNUM] draft-ietf-mpls-crldp-unnum-04.txt
Signalling Unnumbered Links in CR-LDP

[BUNDLE] draft-ietf-mpls-bundle-01.txt
Link Bundling in
Progress, draft-team-tewg-restore-hierarchy-00.txt,
July 2001.

[MPLS-RECOVERY] V. Sharma and F. Hellstrand (Editors), "A Framework
for MPLS Recovery", Internet Draft, Work Traffic Engineering

[GMPLS-ROUTING] draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-02.txt
Routing Extensions in Progress,
draft-ietf-mpls-recovery-frmwrk-03.txt, July 2001.

[SDH/SONET-GMPLS-FRAMEWORK] G. Bernstein, E. Mannie, V. Sharma,
"Framework for GMPLS-based Control Support of SDH/SONET
Networks", Internet Draft, Work Generalized MPLS

[OSPF-TE-GMPLS] draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-04.txt
OSPF Extensions in Progress,
draft-ccamp-optical-sdhsonet-mpls-control-frmwrk-
00.txt, February 2002.

[OLI-REQ] A. Fredette (Editor), "Optical Link Interface
Requirements", Internet Draft, Work Support of Generalized MPLS

[ISIS-TE-GMPLS] draft-ietf-isis-gmpls-extensions-08.txt
IS-IS Extensions in Progress,
draft-ietf-ccamp-oli-reqts-00.txt, February 2002.

[MANCHESTER] J. Manchester, P. Bonenfant, C. Newton, "The Evolution Support of Generalized MPLS

17. References

[RFC1393] G. Malkin, "Traceroute Using an IP Option", IETF
RFC 1393, January 1993.

[RFC1901] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and S.
Waldbusser, "Introduction to Community-based
SNMPv2", IETF RFC 1901, January 1996.

[RFC1902] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and S.
Waldbusser, "Structure of Management Information for
Version 2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol
(SNMPv2)", IETF RFC 1902, January 1996.

[RFC1903] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and S.
Waldbusser, "Textual Conventions for Version 2 of Transport the
Simple Network Survivability," IEEE
Communications, August 1999.

18. Author's Addresses

Peter Ashwood-Smith Eric Mannie (editor)
Nortel Networks Corp. Ebone (GTS)
P.O. Box 3511 Station C, Terhulpsesteenweg 6A
Ottawa, ON K1Y 4H7 1560 Hoeilaart
Canada Belgium
Phone: +1 613 763 4534 Phone: +32 2 658 56 52
Email: Email: eric.mannie@gts.com
petera@nortelnetworks.com

Daniel O. Awduche Thomas D. Nadeau
Movaz Networks Cisco Systems, Inc.
7296 Jones Branch Drive 250 Apollo Drive
Suite 615 Chelmsford, MA 01824
McLean, VA 22102 USA
USA Phone: +1 978 244 3051
Phone: +1 703 847-7350 Email: tnadeau@cisco.com
Email: awduche@movaz.com

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 55
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March 2002

Debashis Basak Dimitri Papadimitriou
Accelight Networks Alcatel - IPO NSG
70 Abele Road, Bldg.1200 Francis Wellesplein, 1
Bridgeville, PA 15017 B-2018 Antwerpen
USA Belgium
Phone: +1 412 220-2102 (ext115) Phone: +32 3 240-84-91
email: dbasak@accelight.com Email:
dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be

Lou Berger Dimitrios Pendarakis
Movaz Networks, Inc. Tellium, Inc.
7926 Jones Branch Drive Management Protocol (SNMPv2)",
IETF RFC 1903, January 1996.

[RFC1904] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and S.
Waldbusser, "Conformance Statements for Version 2 Crescent Place
Suite 615 P.O. Box 901
MCLean VA, 22102 Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901
USA USA
Phone: +1 703 847-1801 Email: DPendarakis@tellium.com
Email: lberger@movaz.com

Greg Bernstein Bala Rajagopalan
Ciena Corporation Tellium, Inc.
10480 Ridgeview Court of
the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)",
IETF RFC 1904, January 1996.

[RFC1905] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and S.
Waldbusser, "Protocol Operations for Version 2 Crescent Place
Cupertino, CA 94014 P.O. Box 901
USA Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901
Phone: +1 408 366 4713 USA
Email: greg@ciena.com Phone: +1 732 923 4237
Email: braja@tellium.com

Sudheer Dharanikota Yakov Rekhter
Nayna Networks Inc. Juniper
481 Sycamore Drive Email: yakov@juniper.net
Milpitas, CA 95035
USA
Email: sudheer@nayna.com

John Drake Debanjan Saha
Calient Networks Tellium of
the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)",
IETF RFC 1905, January 1996.

[RFC1906] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and S.

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft February 2003 55
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

Waldbusser, "Transport Mappings for Version 2 of
the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)",
IETF RFC 1906, January 1996.

[SNMPv3VACM] Wijnen, B., Presuhn, R., and K. McCloghrie, "View-
based Access Control Model (VACM) for the Simple
Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", IETF RFC 2575,
April 1999.

[RFC1739] Kessler G. and Shepard S., "A Primer On Internet and
TCP/IP Tools", IETF RFC 1739, December 1994.

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, IETF RFC 2119, March 1997.

[RFC2328] J. Moy, "OSPF Version 2", IETF RFC 2328, Standard
Track, April 1998.

[RFC2370] R. Coltun, "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option", IETF RFC 2370
Standard Track, July 1998.

[RFC2385] A. Heffernan, "Protection of BGP Sessions via the TCP
MD5 Signature Option", IETF RFC 2385, August 1998.

[RFC2402] S. Kent and R. Atkinson, "IP Authentication Header",
IETF RFC 2402, November 1998.

[RFC2406] S. Kent and R. Atkinson, "IP Encapsulating Security
Payload (ESP)", IETF RFC 2406, November 1998.

[RFC2409] D. Harkins and D. Carrel, "The Internet Key Exchange
(IKE)", IETF RFC 2409, November 1998.

[RFC2747] F. Baker et al., "RSVP Cryptographic Authentication",
IETF RFC 2747, January 2000.

[RFC2925] K. White, "Definitions of Managed Objects for Remote
Ping, Traceroute, and Lookup Operations", IETF RFC
2925, September 2000.

[RFC3031] E. Rosen, A. Viswanathan, R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
Label Switching Architecture", IETF RFC 3031, January
2001.

[RFC3032] E. Rosen, D. Tappan, G. Fedorkow, Y. Rekhter, D.
Farinacci, T. Li, A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
Encoding", IETF RFC 3032, January 2001.

[RFC3036] L. Andersson, P. Doolan, N. Feldman, A. Fredette,
B. Thomas, "LDP Specification", IETF RFC 3036, January
2001.

[OSPF-TE] D. Katz, D. Yeung, and K. Kompella, "Traffic
Engineering Extensions to OSPF", draft-katz-yeung-ospf-

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft February 2003 56
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

traffic-06.txt.

[MPLS-TEO] D. Awduche et al., "Multi-Protocol Lambda Switching:
Combining MPLS Traffic Engineering Control With Optical Systems
5853 Rue Ferrari 2 Crescent Place
San Jose, CA 95138 Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901
USA USA
Phone: +1 408 972 3720 Phone: +1 732 923 4264
Email: jdrake@calient.net Email: dsaha@tellium.com
Crossconnects", Internet Draft, Work in Progress,
draft-awduche-mpls-te-optical-03.txt, April 2001.

[G.841] ITU-T Recommendation G.841, "Types and Characteristics
of SDH Network Protection Architectures", October 1998.

[ANSI-T1.105] "Synchronous Optical Network (SONET): Basic
Description Including Multiplex Structure, Rates, and
Formats", ANSI T1.105, 2000.

[TE-RESTORE] W. Lai, D. McDysan, J. Boyle, et al, "Network Hierarchy
and Multi-layer Survivability", Internet Draft, Work in
Progress, draft-ietf-tewg-restore-hierarchy-00.txt,
October 2001.

[MPLS-RECOVERY] V. Sharma and F. Hellstrand (Editors), "A Framework
for MPLS Recovery", Internet Draft, Work in Progress,
draft-ietf-mpls-recovery-frmwrk-06.txt, July 2002.

[SDH/SONET-GMPLS-FRAMEWORK] G. Bernstein, E. Mannie, V. Sharma,
"Framework for GMPLS-based Control of SDH/SONET
Networks", Internet Draft, Work in Progress,
draft-ietf-ccamp-sdhsonet-control-01.txt, May 2002.

[OLI-REQ] A. Fredette (Editor), "Optical Link Interface
Requirements", Internet Draft, Work in Progress,
draft-ietf-ccamp-oli-reqts-00.txt, February 2002.

[MANCHESTER] J. Manchester, P. Bonenfant, C. Newton, "The Evolution
of Transport Network Survivability", IEEE
Communications, August 1999.

18. Author's Address

Eric Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 56
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March 2002

Yanhe Fan Hal Sandick
Axiowave Networks, Inc. Nortel Networks
200 Nickerson Road Email:
Marlborough, MA 01752 hsandick@nortelnetworks.com
USA
Phone: +1 774 348 4627
Email: yfan@axiowave.com

Don Fedyk Vishal Sharma
Nortel Networks Corp. Metanoia, Inc.
600 Technology Park Drive 305 Elan Village Lane, Unit
Billerica, MA 01821 121
USA San Jose, CA 95134-2545
Phone: +1-978-288-4506 USA
Email: Phone: +1 408 895 50 30
dwfedyk@nortelnetworks.com Email: vsharma87@yahoo.com

Gert Grammel George Swallow
Alcatel Cisco Systems, Inc.
Via Trento, 30 250 Apollo Drive
20059 Vimercate (Mi) Chelmsford, MA 01824
Italy USA
Email: gert.grammel@alcatel.it
Ebone (GTS)
Terhulpsesteenweg 6A
1560 Hoeilaart
Belgium
Phone: +1 978 244 8143
Email: swallow@cisco.com

Dan Guo Z. Bo Tang
Turin Networks, Inc. Tellium, Inc.
1415 N. McDowell Blvd, +32 2 Crescent Place
Petaluma, CA 95454 P.O. Box 901
USA Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901
Email: dguo@turinnetworks.com USA
Phone: +1 732 923 4231
Email: btang@tellium.com

Alan Kullberg George R. Young
NetPlane Systems, Inc. Edgeflow
888 Washington 329 March Road
St.Dedham, MA 02026 Ottawa, Ontario, K2K 2E1
USA Canada
Phone: +1 781 251-5319 658-5652
Email:
Email: akullber@netplane.com george.young@edgeflow.com eric.mannie@gts.com

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 February 2003 57
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt March
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-03.txt August 2002

Jonathan P. Lang John Yu
Calient Networks Zaffire Inc.
25 Castilian 2630 Orchard Parkway
Goleta, CA 93117 San Jose, CA 95134
Email: jplang@calient.net USA
Email: jzyu@zaffire.com

Fong Liaw Alex Zinin
Zaffire Inc. Nexsi Systems
2630 Orchard Parkway 178 East Tasman Dr
San Jose, CA 95134 San Jose, CA 95134
USA USA
Email: fliaw@zaffire.com

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
English.

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
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE."

E. Mannie et. al. Internet-Draft September 2002 February 2003 58