draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-general-constraints-ospf-te-02.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-general-constraints-ospf-te-03.txt 
Network work group Fatai Zhang Network work group Fatai Zhang
Internet Draft Young Lee Internet Draft Young Lee
Intended status: Standards Track Jianrui Han Intended status: Standards Track Jianrui Han
Huawei Huawei
G. Bernstein G. Bernstein
Grotto Networking Grotto Networking
Yunbin Xu Yunbin Xu
CATR CATR
Expires: March 22, 2012 September 22, 2011
OSPF-TE Extensions for General Network Element Constraints Expires: December 19, 2012 June 19, 2012
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-general-constraints-ospf-te-02.txt OSPF-TE Extensions for General Network Element Constraints
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-general-constraints-ospf-te-03.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with
the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts. Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in
progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 22, 2012. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 19, 2012.
Abstract Abstract
Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching can be used to control a Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching can be used to control a
wide variety of technologies including packet switching (e.g., MPLS), wide variety of technologies including packet switching (e.g., MPLS),
time-division (e.g., SONET/SDH, OTN), wavelength (lambdas), and time-division (e.g., SONET/SDH, OTN), wavelength (lambdas), and
spatial switching (e.g., incoming port or fiber to outgoing port or spatial switching (e.g., incoming port or fiber to outgoing port or
fiber). In some of these technologies network elements and links may fiber). In some of these technologies network elements and links may
impose additional routing constraints such as asymmetric switch impose additional routing constraints such as asymmetric switch
connectivity, non-local label assignment, and label range limitations connectivity, non-local label assignment, and label range
on links. This document describes OSPF routing protocol extensions to limitations on links. This document describes OSPF routing protocol
support these kinds of constraints under the control of Generalized extensions to support these kinds of constraints under the control
MPLS (GMPLS). of Generalized MPLS (GMPLS).
Conventions used in this document Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119].
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................ 2 1. Introduction...................................................2
2. Node Information ............................................ 3 2. Node Information...............................................3
2.1. Connectivity Matrix..................................... 4 2.1. Connectivity Matrix.......................................4
3. Link Information ............................................ 4 3. Link Information...............................................4
3.1. Port Label Restrictions................................. 5 3.1. Port Label Restrictions...................................5
3.2. Available Labels........................................ 5 3.2. Available Labels..........................................5
3.3. Shared Backup Labels.................................... 6 3.3. Shared Backup Labels......................................6
4. Routing Procedures .......................................... 6 4. Routing Procedures.............................................6
5. Scalability and Timeliness................................... 7 5. Scalability and Timeliness.....................................7
5.1. Different Sub-TLVs into Multiple LSAs ...................7 5.1. Different Sub-TLVs into Multiple LSAs.....................7
5.2. Decomposing a Connectivity Matrix into Multiple Matrices.8 5.2. Decomposing a Connectivity Matrix into Multiple Matrices..8
6. Security Considerations...................................... 8 6. Security Considerations........................................8
7. IANA Considerations ......................................... 8 7. IANA Considerations............................................8
7.1. Node Information........................................ 8 7.1. Node Information..........................................9
7.2. Link Information........................................ 9 7.2. Link Information..........................................9
8. References .................................................. 9 8. References.....................................................9
8.1. Normative References.................................... 9 8.1. Normative References......................................9
8.2. Informative References................................. 10 8.2. Informative References...................................10
9. Authors' Addresses.......................................... 10 9. Authors' Addresses ............................................10
Acknowledgment ................................................ 12 Acknowledgment...................................................12
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Some data plane technologies that wish to make use of a GMPLS control Some data plane technologies that wish to make use of a GMPLS
plane contain additional constraints on switching capability and control plane contain additional constraints on switching capability
label assignment. In addition, some of these technologies should be and label assignment. In addition, some of these technologies should
capable of performing non-local label assignment based on the nature be capable of performing non-local label assignment based on the
of the technology, e.g., wavelength continuity constraint in WSON nature of the technology, e.g., wavelength continuity constraint in
WSON [RFC6163]. Such constraints can lead to the requirement for
[RFC6163]. Such constraints can lead to the requirement for link by link by link label availability in path computation and label
link label availability in path computation and label assignment. assignment.
[GEN-Encode] provides efficient encodings of information needed by [GEN-Encode] provides efficient encodings of information needed by
the routing and label assignment process in technologies such as WSON the routing and label assignment process in technologies such as
and are potentially applicable to a wider range of technologies. WSON and are potentially applicable to a wider range of
technologies.
This document defines extensions to the OSPF routing protocol based This document defines extensions to the OSPF routing protocol based
on [GEN-Encode] to enhance the Traffic Engineering (TE) properties of on [GEN-Encode] to enhance the Traffic Engineering (TE) properties
GMPLS TE which are defined in [RFC3630], [RFC4202], and [RFC4203]. of GMPLS TE which are defined in [RFC3630], [RFC4202], and [RFC4203].
The enhancements to the Traffic Engineering (TE) properties of GMPLS The enhancements to the Traffic Engineering (TE) properties of GMPLS
TE links can be announced in OSPF TE LSAs. The TE LSA, which is an TE links can be announced in OSPF TE LSAs. The TE LSA, which is an
opaque LSA with area flooding scope [RFC3630], has only one top-level opaque LSA with area flooding scope [RFC3630], has only one top-
Type/Length/Value (TLV) triplet and has one or more nested sub-TLVs level Type/Length/Value (TLV) triplet and has one or more nested
for extensibility. The top-level TLV can take one of three values (1) sub-TLVs for extensibility. The top-level TLV can take one of three
Router Address [RFC3630], (2) Link [RFC3630], (3) Generic Node values (1) Router Address [RFC3630], (2) Link [RFC3630], (3) Generic
Attribute defined in Section 2. In this document, we enhance the sub- Node Attribute defined in Section 2. In this document, we enhance
TLVs for the Link TLV and define a new top-level TLV (Generic Node the sub-TLVs for the Link TLV and define a new top-level TLV
Attribute TLV) in support of the general network element constraints (Generic Node Attribute TLV) in support of the general network
under the control of GMPLS. element constraints under the control of GMPLS.
The detailed encoding of OSPF extensions are not defined in this The detailed encoding of OSPF extensions are not defined in this
document. [GEN-Encode] provides encoding detail. document. [GEN-Encode] provides encoding detail.
2. Node Information 2. Node Information
According to [GEN-Encode], the additional node information According to [GEN-Encode], the additional node information
representing node switching asymmetry constraints includes Node ID, representing node switching asymmetry constraints includes Node ID,
connectivity matrix. Except for the Node ID which should comply with connectivity matrix. Except for the Node ID which should comply with
Routing Address described in [RFC3630], the other pieces of Routing Address described in [RFC3630], the other pieces of
skipping to change at page 3, line 46 skipping to change at page 4, line 4
This document defines a new top TLV named the Generic Node Attribute This document defines a new top TLV named the Generic Node Attribute
TLV which carries attributes related to a general network element. TLV which carries attributes related to a general network element.
This Generic Node Attribute TLV contains one or more sub-TLVs This Generic Node Attribute TLV contains one or more sub-TLVs
Per [GEN-Encode], we have identified the following new Sub-TLVs to Per [GEN-Encode], we have identified the following new Sub-TLVs to
the Generic Node Attribute TLV. Detail description for each newly the Generic Node Attribute TLV. Detail description for each newly
defined Sub-TLV is provided in subsequent sections: defined Sub-TLV is provided in subsequent sections:
Sub-TLV Type Length Name Sub-TLV Type Length Name
TBD variable Connectivity Matrix TBD variable Connectivity Matrix
In some specific technologies, e.g., WSON networks, Connectivity In some specific technologies, e.g., WSON networks, Connectivity
Matrix sub-TLV may be optional, which depends on the control plane Matrix sub-TLV may be optional, which depends on the control plane
implementations. Usually, for example, in WSON networks, Connectivity implementations. Usually, for example, in WSON networks,
Matrix sub-TLV may appear in the LSAs because WSON switches are Connectivity Matrix sub-TLV may appear in the LSAs because WSON
asymmetric at present. It is assumed that the switches are symmetric switches are asymmetric at present. It is assumed that the switches
switching, if there is no Connectivity Matrix sub-TLV in the LSAs. are symmetric switching, if there is no Connectivity Matrix sub-TLV
in the LSAs.
2.1. Connectivity Matrix 2.1. Connectivity Matrix
It is necessary to identify which ingress ports and labels can be It is necessary to identify which ingress ports and labels can be
switched to some specific labels on a specific egress port, if the switched to some specific labels on a specific egress port, if the
switching devices in some technology are highly asymmetric. switching devices in some technology are highly asymmetric.
The Connectivity Matrix is used to identify these restrictions, which The Connectivity Matrix is used to identify these restrictions,
can represent either the potential connectivity matrix for asymmetric which can represent either the potential connectivity matrix for
switches (e.g. ROADMs and such) or fixed connectivity for an asymmetric switches (e.g. ROADMs and such) or fixed connectivity for
asymmetric device such as a multiplexer as defined in [WSON-Info]. an asymmetric device such as a multiplexer as defined in [WSON-
Info].
The Connectivity Matrix is a sub-TLV (the type is TBD by IANA) of the The Connectivity Matrix is a sub-TLV (the type is TBD by IANA) of
Generic Node Attribute TLV. The length is the length of value field the Generic Node Attribute TLV. The length is the length of value
in octets. The meaning and format of this sub-TLV are defined in field in octets. The meaning and format of this sub-TLV are defined
Section 5.3 of [GEN-Encode]. One sub-TLV contains one matrix. The in Section 5.3 of [GEN-Encode]. One sub-TLV contains one matrix. The
Connectivity Matrix sub-TLV may occur more than once to contain Connectivity Matrix sub-TLV may occur more than once to contain
multi-matrices within the Generic Node Attribute TLV. In addition a multi-matrices within the Generic Node Attribute TLV. In addition a
large connectivity matrix can be decomposed into smaller separate large connectivity matrix can be decomposed into smaller separate
matrices for transmission in multiple LSAs as described in Section 5. matrices for transmission in multiple LSAs as described in Section 5.
3. Link Information 3. Link Information
The most common link sub-TLVs nested to link top-level TLV are The most common link sub-TLVs nested to link top-level TLV are
already defined in [RFC3630], [RFC4203]. For example, Link ID, already defined in [RFC3630], [RFC4203]. For example, Link ID,
Administrative Group, Interface Switching Capability Descriptor Administrative Group, Interface Switching Capability Descriptor
skipping to change at page 4, line 43 skipping to change at page 5, line 4
(ISCD), Link Protection Type, Shared Risk Link Group Information (ISCD), Link Protection Type, Shared Risk Link Group Information
(SRLG), and Traffic Engineering Metric are among the typical link (SRLG), and Traffic Engineering Metric are among the typical link
sub-TLVs. sub-TLVs.
Per [GEN-Encode], we add the following additional link sub-TLVs to Per [GEN-Encode], we add the following additional link sub-TLVs to
the link-TLV in this document. the link-TLV in this document.
Sub-TLV Type Length Name Sub-TLV Type Length Name
TBD variable Port Label Restrictions TBD variable Port Label Restrictions
TBD variable Available Labels TBD variable Available Labels
TBD variable Shared Backup Labels TBD variable Shared Backup Labels
Generally all the sub-TLVs above are optional, which depends on the Generally all the sub-TLVs above are optional, which depends on the
control plane implementations. If it is default no restrictions on control plane implementations. If it is default no restrictions on
labels, Port Label Restrictions sub-TLV may not appear in the LSAs. labels, Port Label Restrictions sub-TLV may not appear in the LSAs.
In order to be able to compute label assignment, Available Labels In order to be able to compute label assignment, Available Labels
sub-TLV may appear in the LSAs. For example, in WSON networks, sub-TLV may appear in the LSAs. For example, in WSON networks,
without available wavelength information, path computation need guess without available wavelength information, path computation need
what lambdas may be available (high blocking probability or guess what lambdas may be available (high blocking probability or
distributed wavelength assignment may be used). distributed wavelength assignment may be used).
3.1. Port Label Restrictions 3.1. Port Label Restrictions
Port label restrictions describe the label restrictions that the Port label restrictions describe the label restrictions that the
network element (node) and link may impose on a port. These network element (node) and link may impose on a port. These
restrictions represent what labels may or may not be used on a link restrictions represent what labels may or may not be used on a link
and are intended to be relatively static. More dynamic information is and are intended to be relatively static. More dynamic information
contained in the information on available labels. Port label is contained in the information on available labels. Port label
restrictions are specified relative to the port in general or to a restrictions are specified relative to the port in general or to a
specific connectivity matrix for increased modeling flexibility. specific connectivity matrix for increased modeling flexibility.
For example, Port Label Restrictions describes the wavelength For example, Port Label Restrictions describes the wavelength
restrictions that the link and various optical devices such as OXCs, restrictions that the link and various optical devices such as OXCs,
ROADMs, and waveband multiplexers may impose on a port in WSON. These ROADMs, and waveband multiplexers may impose on a port in WSON.
restrictions represent what wavelength may or may not be used on a These restrictions represent what wavelength may or may not be used
link and are relatively static. The detailed information about Port on a link and are relatively static. The detailed information about
label restrictions is described in [WSON-Info]. Port label restrictions is described in [WSON-Info].
The Port Label Restrictions is a sub-TLV (the type is TBD by IANA) of The Port Label Restrictions is a sub-TLV (the type is TBD by IANA)
the Link TLV. The length is the length of value field in octets. The of the Link TLV. The length is the length of value field in octets.
meaning and format of this sub-TLV are defined in Section 5.4 of The meaning and format of this sub-TLV are defined in Section 5.4 of
[GEN-Encode]. The Port Label Restrictions sub-TLV may occur more than [GEN-Encode]. The Port Label Restrictions sub-TLV may occur more
once to specify a complex port constraint within the link TLV. than once to specify a complex port constraint within the link TLV.
3.2. Available Labels 3.2. Available Labels
Available Labels indicates the labels available for use on a link as Available Labels indicates the labels available for use on a link as
described in [GEN-Encode]. The Available Labels is a sub-TLV (the described in [GEN-Encode]. The Available Labels is a sub-TLV (the
type is TBD by IANA) of the Link TLV. The length is the length of type is TBD by IANA) of the Link TLV. The length is the length of
value field in octets. The meaning and format of this sub-TLV are value field in octets. The meaning and format of this sub-TLV are
defined in Section 5.1 of [GEN-Encode]. The Available Labels sub-TLV defined in Section 5.1 of [GEN-Encode]. The Available Labels sub-TLV
may occur at most once within the link TLV. may occur at most once within the link TLV.
Note that there are five approaches for Label Set which is used to Note that there are five approaches for Label Set which is used to
represent the Available Labels described in [GEN-Encode]. Usually, it represent the Available Labels described in [GEN-Encode]. Usually,
depends on the implementation to one of the approaches. In WSON it depends on the implementation to one of the approaches. In WSON
networks, considering that the continuity of the available or networks, considering that the continuity of the available or
unavailable wavelength set can be scattered for the dynamic unavailable wavelength set can be scattered for the dynamic
wavelength availability, so it may burden the routing to reorganize wavelength availability, so it may burden the routing to reorganize
the wavelength set information when the Inclusive (/Exclusive) List the wavelength set information when the Inclusive (/Exclusive) List
(/Range) approaches are used to represent Available Wavelengths (/Range) approaches are used to represent Available Wavelengths
information. Therefore, it is RECOMMENDED that only the Bitmap Set be information. Therefore, it is RECOMMENDED that only the Bitmap Set
used for representation Available Wavelengths information. be used for representation Available Wavelengths information.
The "Base Label" and "Last Label" in label set defined in [GEN-Encode] The "Base Label" and "Last Label" in label set defined in [GEN-
corresponds to base wavelength label and last wavelength label in Encode] corresponds to base wavelength label and last wavelength
WSON, the format of which is described as follows: label in WSON, the format of which is described as follows:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Grid | C.S. | Reserved | n | |Grid | C.S. | Reserved | n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The detailed information related to wavelength label can be referred The detailed information related to wavelength label can be referred
to [RFC6205]. to [RFC6205].
3.3. Shared Backup Labels 3.3. Shared Backup Labels
Shared Backup Labels indicates the labels available for shared backup Shared Backup Labels indicates the labels available for shared
use on a link as described in [GEN-Encode]. backup use on a link as described in [GEN-Encode].
The Shared Backup Labels is a sub-TLV (the type is TBD by IANA) of The Shared Backup Labels is a sub-TLV (the type is TBD by IANA) of
the Link TLV. The length is the length of value field in octets. The the Link TLV. The length is the length of value field in octets. The
meaning and format of this sub-TLV are defined in Section 5.2 of meaning and format of this sub-TLV are defined in Section 5.2 of
[GEN-Encode]. The Shared Backup Labels sub-TLV may occur at most once [GEN-Encode]. The Shared Backup Labels sub-TLV may occur at most
within the link TLV. once within the link TLV.
4. Routing Procedures 4. Routing Procedures
All the sub-TLVs are nested to top-level TLV(s) and contained in All the sub-TLVs are nested to top-level TLV(s) and contained in
Opaque LSAs. The flooding of Opaque LSAs must follow the rules Opaque LSAs. The flooding of Opaque LSAs must follow the rules
specified in [RFC2328], [RFC5250], [RFC3630], [RFC4203]. specified in [RFC2328], [RFC5250], [RFC3630], [RFC4203].
Considering the routing scalability issues in some cases, the routing Considering the routing scalability issues in some cases, the
protocol should be capable of supporting the separation of dynamic routing protocol should be capable of supporting the separation of
information from relatively static information to avoid unnecessary dynamic information from relatively static information to avoid
updates of static information when dynamic information is changed. A unnecessary updates of static information when dynamic information
standard-compliant approach is to separate the dynamic information is changed. A standard-compliant approach is to separate the dynamic
sub-TLVs from the static information sub-TLVs, each nested to top- information sub-TLVs from the static information sub-TLVs, each
level TLV ([RFC3630 and RFC5876]), and advertise them in the separate nested to top-level TLV ([RFC3630 and RFC5876]), and advertise them
OSPF TE LSAs. in the separate OSPF TE LSAs.
For node information, since the Connectivity Matrix information is For node information, since the Connectivity Matrix information is
static, the LSA containing the Generic Node Attribute TLV can be static, the LSA containing the Generic Node Attribute TLV can be
updated with a lower frequency to avoid unnecessary updates. updated with a lower frequency to avoid unnecessary updates.
For link information, a mechanism MAY be applied such that static For link information, a mechanism MAY be applied such that static
information and dynamic information of one TE link are contained in information and dynamic information of one TE link are contained in
separate Opaque LSAs. For example, the Port Label Restrictions separate Opaque LSAs. For example, the Port Label Restrictions
information sub-TLV and Available Labels information sub-TLV can be information sub-TLV and Available Labels information sub-TLV can be
nested to the top level link TLVs and advertised in the separate LSAs. nested to the top level link TLVs and advertised in the separate
LSAs.
Note that as with other TE information, an implementation SHOULD take Note that as with other TE information, an implementation SHOULD
measures to avoid rapid and frequent updates of routing information take measures to avoid rapid and frequent updates of routing
that could cause the routing network to become swamped. A threshold information that could cause the routing network to become swamped.
mechanism MAY be applied such that updates are only flooded when a A threshold mechanism MAY be applied such that updates are only
number of changes have been made to the label availability flooded when a number of changes have been made to the label
information (e.g., wavelength availability) within a specific time. availability information (e.g., wavelength availability) within a
Such mechanisms MUST be configurable if they are implemented. specific time. Such mechanisms MUST be configurable if they are
implemented.
5. Scalability and Timeliness 5. Scalability and Timeliness
This document has defined four sub-TLVs for describing generic This document has defined four sub-TLVs for describing generic
routing contraints. The examples given in [Gen-Encode] show that very routing contraints. The examples given in [Gen-Encode] show that
large systems, in terms of label count or ports can be very very large systems, in terms of label count or ports can be very
efficiently encoded. However there has been concern expressed that efficiently encoded. However there has been concern expressed that
some possible systems may produce LSAs that exceed the IP Maximum some possible systems may produce LSAs that exceed the IP Maximum
Transmission Unit (MTU) and that methods be given to allow for the Transmission Unit (MTU) and that methods be given to allow for the
splitting of general constraint LSAs into smaller LSA that are under splitting of general constraint LSAs into smaller LSA that are under
the MTU limit. This section presents a set of techniques that can be the MTU limit. This section presents a set of techniques that can be
used for this purpose. used for this purpose.
5.1. Different Sub-TLVs into Multiple LSAs 5.1. Different Sub-TLVs into Multiple LSAs
Four sub-TLVs are defined in this document: Four sub-TLVs are defined in this document:
1. Connectivity Matrix (Generic Node Attribute TLV) 1. Connectivity Matrix (Generic Node Attribute TLV)
2. Port Label Restrictions (Link TLV) 2. Port Label Restrictions (Link TLV)
3. Available Labels (Link TLV) 3. Available Labels (Link TLV)
4. Shared Backup Labels (Link TLV) 4. Shared Backup Labels (Link TLV)
Except for the Connectivity Matrix all these are carried in an Link Except for the Connectivity Matrix all these are carried in an Link
TLV of which there can be at most one in an LSA [RFC3630]. Of these TLV of which there can be at most one in an LSA [RFC3630]. Of these
sub-TLVs the Port Label Restrictions are relatively static, i.e., sub-TLVs the Port Label Restrictions are relatively static, i.e.,
only would change with hardware changes or significant system only would change with hardware changes or significant system
reconfiguration. While the Available Labels and Shared Backup Labels reconfiguration. While the Available Labels and Shared Backup Labels
are dynamic, meaning that they may change with LSP setup or teardown are dynamic, meaning that they may change with LSP setup or teardown
through the system. The most important technique for scalability and through the system. The most important technique for scalability and
OSPF bandwidth reduction is to separate the dynamic information sub- OSPF bandwidth reduction is to separate the dynamic information sub-
TLVs from the static information sub-TLVs and advertise them in TLVs from the static information sub-TLVs and advertise them in
separate OSPF TE LSAs[RFC3630 and RFC5250]. separate OSPF TE LSAs[RFC3630 and RFC5250].
5.2. Decomposing a Connectivity Matrix into Multiple Matrices 5.2. Decomposing a Connectivity Matrix into Multiple Matrices
In the highly unlikely event that a Connectivity matrix sub-TLV by In the highly unlikely event that a Connectivity matrix sub-TLV by
itself would result in an LSA exceeding the MTU, a single large itself would result in an LSA exceeding the MTU, a single large
matrix can be decomposed into sub-matrices. Per [GEN-Encode] a matrix can be decomposed into sub-matrices. Per [GEN-Encode] a
connectivity matrix just consists of pairs of input and output ports connectivity matrix just consists of pairs of input and output ports
that can reach each other and hence such this decomposition would be that can reach each other and hence such this decomposition would be
straightforward. Each of these sub-matrices would get a unique matrix straightforward. Each of these sub-matrices would get a unique
identifier per [GEN-Encode]. matrix identifier per [GEN-Encode].
From the point of view of a path computation process, prior to From the point of view of a path computation process, prior to
receiving an LSA with a Connectivity Matrix sub-TLV, no connectivity receiving an LSA with a Connectivity Matrix sub-TLV, no connectivity
restrictions are assumed, i.e., the standard GMPLS assumption of any restrictions are assumed, i.e., the standard GMPLS assumption of any
port to any port reachability holds. Once a Connectivity Matrix sub- port to any port reachability holds. Once a Connectivity Matrix sub-
TLV is received then path computation would know that connectivity is TLV is received then path computation would know that connectivity
restricted and use the information from all Connectivity Matrix sub- is restricted and use the information from all Connectivity Matrix
TLVs received to understand the complete connectivity potential of sub-TLVs received to understand the complete connectivity potential
the system. Prior to receiving any Connectivity Matrix sub-TLVs path of the system. Prior to receiving any Connectivity Matrix sub-TLVs
computation may compute a path through the system when in fact no path computation may compute a path through the system when in fact
path exists. In between the reception of an additional Connectivity no path exists. In between the reception of an additional
Matrix sub-TLV path computation may not be able to find a path Connectivity Matrix sub-TLV path computation may not be able to find
through the system when one actually exists. Both cases are currently a path through the system when one actually exists. Both cases are
encountered and handled with existing GMPLS mechanisms. Due to the currently encountered and handled with existing GMPLS mechanisms.
reliability mechanisms in OSPF the phenomena of late or missing Due to the reliability mechanisms in OSPF the phenomena of late or
Connectivity Matrix sub-TLVs would be relatively rare. missing Connectivity Matrix sub-TLVs would be relatively rare.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce any further security issues other This document does not introduce any further security issues other
than those discussed in [RFC 3630], [RFC 4203]. than those discussed in [RFC 3630], [RFC 4203].
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
[RFC3630] says that the top level Types in a TE LSA and Types for [RFC3630] says that the top level Types in a TE LSA and Types for
sub-TLVs for each top level Types must be assigned by Expert Review, sub-TLVs for each top level Types must be assigned by Expert Review,
skipping to change at page 9, line 15 skipping to change at page 9, line 23
This document also introduces the following sub-TLVs of Generic Node This document also introduces the following sub-TLVs of Generic Node
Attribute TLV: Attribute TLV:
Type sub-TLV Type sub-TLV
TBD Connectivity Matrix TBD Connectivity Matrix
7.2. Link Information 7.2. Link Information
This document introduces the following sub-TLVs of TE Link TLV (Value This document introduces the following sub-TLVs of TE Link TLV
2): (Value 2):
Type sub-TLV Type sub-TLV
TBD Port Label Restrictions TBD Port Label Restrictions
TBD Available Labels TBD Available Labels
TBD Shared Backup Labels TBD Shared Backup Labels
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998. [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.
[RFC5250] L. Berger, I. Bryskin, A. Zinin, R. Coltun "The OSPF Opaque [RFC5250] L. Berger, I. Bryskin, A. Zinin, R. Coltun "The OSPF
LSA Option", RFC 5250, July 2008. Opaque LSA Option", RFC 5250, July 2008.
[RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and Yeung, D., "Traffic Engineering [RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and Yeung, D., "Traffic
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,
2003. September 2003.
[RFC4202] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing Extensions [RFC4202] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing
in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
(GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005 Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005
[RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in [RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005. (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005.
[GEN-Encode] G. Bernstein, Y. Lee, D. Li, W. Imajuku, " General [GEN-Encode] G. Bernstein, Y. Lee, D. Li, W. Imajuku, " General
Network Element Constraint Encoding for GMPLS Controlled Network Element Constraint Encoding for GMPLS Controlled
Networks", work in progress: draft-ietf-ccamp-general- Networks", work in progress: draft-ietf-ccamp-general-
constraint-encode-05.txt, May 2011. constraint-encode, May 2011.
[RFC6205] T. Otani, H. Guo, K. Miyazaki, D. Caviglia, " Generalized [RFC6205] T. Otani, H. Guo, K. Miyazaki, D. Caviglia, " Generalized
Labels for Lambda-Switching Capable Label Switching Labels for Lambda-Switching Capable Label Switching
Routers", work in progress: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694- Routers", RFC 6205, January 2011.
lambda-labels-11.txt, January 2011.
8.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[RFC6163] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein, W. Imajuku, "Framework for GMPLS and [RFC6163] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein, W. Imajuku, "Framework for GMPLS and
PCE Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSON)", PCE Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks
work in progress: draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-WSON-Framework- (WSON)", RFC 6163, February 2011.
12.txt, February 2011.
[WSON-Info] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein, D. Li, W. Imajuku, "Routing and [WSON-Info] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein, D. Li, W. Imajuku, "Routing and
Wavelength Assignment Information Model for Wavelength Wavelength Assignment Information Model for Wavelength
Switched Optical Networks", work in progress: draft-ietf- Switched Optical Networks", work in progress: draft-ietf-
ccamp-rwa-info-12.txt, September 2011. ccamp-rwa-info, September 2011.
9. Authors' Addresses 9. Authors' Addresses
Fatai Zhang Fatai Zhang
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base
Bantian, Longgang District Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China
Phone: +86-755-28972912 Phone: +86-755-28972912
skipping to change at page 13, line 4 skipping to change at page 13, line 11
claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology
described in any IETF Document or the extent to which any license described in any IETF Document or the extent to which any license
under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it
represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any
such rights. such rights.
Copies of Intellectual Property disclosures made to the IETF Copies of Intellectual Property disclosures made to the IETF
Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or
the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or
permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or
users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line
repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
any standard or specification contained in an IETF Document. Please any standard or specification contained in an IETF Document. Please
address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
The definitive version of an IETF Document is that published by, or The definitive version of an IETF Document is that published by, or
under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of IETF Documents that are under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of IETF Documents that are
published by third parties, including those that are translated into published by third parties, including those that are translated into
other languages, should not be considered to be definitive versions other languages, should not be considered to be definitive versions
of IETF Documents. The definitive version of these Legal Provisions of IETF Documents. The definitive version of these Legal Provisions
is that published by, or under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of is that published by, or under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions
these Legal Provisions that are published by third parties, including of these Legal Provisions that are published by third parties,
those that are translated into other languages, should not be including those that are translated into other languages, should
considered to be definitive versions of these Legal Provisions. not be considered to be definitive versions of these Legal
Provisions.
For the avoidance of doubt, each Contributor to the IETF Standards For the avoidance of doubt, each Contributor to the IETF Standards
Process licenses each Contribution that he or she makes as part of Process licenses each Contribution that he or she makes as part of
the IETF Standards Process to the IETF Trust pursuant to the the IETF Standards Process to the IETF Trust pursuant to the
provisions of RFC 5378. No language to the contrary, or terms, provisions of RFC 5378. No language to the contrary, or terms,
conditions or rights that differ from or are inconsistent with the conditions or rights that differ from or are inconsistent with the
rights and licenses granted under RFC 5378, shall have any effect and rights and licenses granted under RFC 5378, shall have any effect
shall be null and void, whether published or posted by such and shall be null and void, whether published or posted by such
Contributor, or included with or in such Contribution. Contributor, or included with or in such Contribution.
Disclaimer of Validity Disclaimer of Validity
All IETF Documents and the information contained therein are provided All IETF Documents and the information contained therein are
on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET
IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE
WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION THEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION THEREIN
ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Full Copyright Statement Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, publication of this document. Please review these documents
as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
document. Code Components extracted from this document must include respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
the Simplified BSD License. warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
 End of changes. 48 change blocks. 
170 lines changed or deleted 172 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/