draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-general-constraints-ospf-te-08.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-general-constraints-ospf-te-09.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: November 22, 2014 May 22, 2014 Expires: August 11, 2015 February 11, 2015
OSPF-TE Extensions for General Network Element Constraints OSPF-TE Extensions for General Network Element Constraints
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-general-constraints-ospf-te-08.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-general-constraints-ospf-te-09.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.
skipping to change at page 1, line 38 skipping to change at page 1, line 38
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 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 November 22, 2014. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 11, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 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 publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
skipping to change at page 2, line 38 skipping to change at page 2, line 38
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...................................................3 1. Introduction...................................................3
2. Node Information...............................................3 2. Node Information...............................................4
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
4. Routing Procedures.............................................5 4. Routing Procedures.............................................5
5. Scalability and Timeliness.....................................6 5. Scalability and Timeliness.....................................6
5.1. Different Sub-TLVs into Multiple LSAs.....................6 5.1. Different Sub-TLVs into Multiple LSAs.....................6
5.2. Decomposing a Connectivity Matrix into Multiple Matrices..7 5.2. Decomposing a Connectivity Matrix into Multiple Matrices..7
6. Security Considerations........................................7 6. Security Considerations........................................7
7. IANA Considerations............................................7 7. Manageability..................................................8
7.1. Node Information..........................................8 8. IANA Considerations............................................8
7.2. Link Information..........................................8 8.1. Node Information..........................................8
8. References.....................................................8 8.2. Link Information..........................................9
8.1. Normative References......................................8 9. References.....................................................9
8.2. Informative References....................................9 9.1. Normative References......................................9
9. Authors' Addresses .............................................9 9.2. Informative References...................................10
Acknowledgment...................................................11 10. Authors' Addresses ...........................................10
Acknowledgment...................................................12
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Some data plane technologies that require the use of a GMPLS control Some data plane technologies that require the use of a GMPLS control
plane impose additional constraints on switching capability and plane impose additional constraints on switching capability and
label assignment. In addition, some of these technologies should be label assignment. In addition, some of these technologies should be
capable of performing non-local label assignment based on the nature capable of performing non-local label assignment based on the nature
of the technology, e.g., wavelength continuity constraint in of the technology, e.g., wavelength continuity constraint in
Wavelength Switched Optical Network (WSON) [RFC6163]. Such Wavelength Switched Optical Network (WSON) [RFC6163]. Such
constraints can lead to the requirement for link by link label constraints can lead to the requirement for link by link label
skipping to change at page 3, line 38 skipping to change at page 3, line 39
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 on [GEN-Encode] to enhance the Traffic Engineering (TE) properties
of 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 TE properties of GMPLS TE links can be The enhancements to the TE properties of GMPLS TE links can be
advertised in OSPF TE LSAs. The TE LSA, which is an opaque LSA with advertised in OSPF TE LSAs. The TE LSA, which is an opaque LSA with
area flooding scope [RFC3630], has only one top-level area flooding scope [RFC3630], has only one top-level
Type/Length/Value (TLV) triplet and has one or more nested sub-TLVs Type/Length/Value (TLV) triplet and has one or more nested sub-TLVs
for extensibility. The top-level TLV can take one of three values (1) for extensibility. The top-level TLV can take one of three values (1)
Router Address [RFC3630], (2) Link [RFC3630], (3) Node Attribute Router Address [RFC3630], (2) Link [RFC3630], (3) Node Attribute
defined in Section 2. In this document, we enhance the sub-TLVs for [RFC5786]. In this document, we enhance the sub-TLVs for the Link
the Link TLV in support of the general network element constraints TLV in support of the general network element constraints under the
under the control of GMPLS. 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 details. document. [GEN-Encode] provides encoding details.
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
and connectivity matrix. Except for the Node ID, which should comply and connectivity matrix. Except for the Node ID, which should comply
with Routing Address described in [RFC3630], the other pieces of with Routing Address described in [RFC3630], the other pieces of
information are defined in this document. information are defined in this document.
Per [GEN-Encode], we have identified the following new Sub-TLVs to Per [GEN-Encode], this document defines the Connectivity Matrix Sub-
the Node Attribute TLV as defined in [RFC5786]. Detailed description TLV of the Node Attribute TLV defined in [RFC5786]. The new Sub-TLV
for each newly defined Sub-TLV is provided in subsequent sections: has Type TBD1 (to be assigned by IANA).
Sub-TLV Type Length Name
14 (Suggested) variable Connectivity Matrix
In some specific technologies, e.g., WSON networks, the Connectivity In some specific technologies, e.g., WSON networks, the 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, implementations. Usually, for example, in WSON networks,
Connectivity Matrix sub-TLV may be advertised in the LSAs since WSON Connectivity Matrix sub-TLV may be advertised in the LSAs since WSON
switches are currently asymmetric. If no Connectivity Matrix sub-TLV switches are currently asymmetric. If no Connectivity Matrix sub-TLV
is included, it is assumed that the switches support symmetric is included, it is assumed that the switches support symmetric
switching. switching.
2.1. Connectivity Matrix 2.1. Connectivity Matrix
skipping to change at page 5, line 7 skipping to change at page 5, line 7
3. Link Information 3. Link Information
The most common link sub-TLVs nested in the top-level link TLV are The most common link sub-TLVs nested in the top-level link 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
(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], this document defines the Port Label Restrictions
the link TLV in this document. Sub-TLV of the Link TLV defined in [RFC3630]. The new Sub-TLV has
Type TBD2 (to be assigned by IANA).
Sub-TLV Type Length Name
26 (suggested) variable Port Label Restrictions
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. The Port Label Restrictions sub-TLV control plane implementations. The Port Label Restrictions sub-TLV
will not be advertised when there are no restrictions on label will not be advertised when there are no restrictions on label
assignment. assignment.
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
skipping to change at page 7, line 39 skipping to change at page 7, line 39
missing Connectivity Matrix sub-TLVs would be relatively rare. missing Connectivity Matrix sub-TLVs would be relatively rare.
In case where the new sub-TLVs or their attendant encodings are In case where the new sub-TLVs or their attendant encodings are
malformed, the proper action would be to log the problem and ignore malformed, the proper action would be to log the problem and ignore
just the sub-TLVs in GMPLS path computations rather than ignoring just the sub-TLVs in GMPLS path computations rather than ignoring
the entire LSA. the entire LSA.
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 [RFC3630], [RFC4203]. than those discussed in [RFC3630], [RFC4203], and [RFC5250].
For general security aspects relevant to Generalized Multiprotocol For general security aspects relevant to Generalized Multiprotocol
Label Switching (GMPLS)-controlled networks, please refer to Label Switching (GMPLS)-controlled networks, please refer to
[RFC5920]. [RFC5920].
7. IANA Considerations 7. Manageability
IANA is requested to allocate new sub-TLVs as defined in Sections 2 No existing management tools handle the additional TE parameters as
and 3 as follows: defined in this document and distributed in OSPF-TE. The existing
MIB module contained in [RFC6825] allows the TE information
distributed by OSPF-TE to be read from a network node: this MIB
module could be augmented (possibly by a sparse augmentation) to
report this new information.
7.1. Node Information The current environment in the IETF favors NETCONF [RFC6241] and
YANG [RFC6020] over SNMP and MIB modules. Work is in progress in
the TEAS working group to develop a YANG module to represent the
generic TE information that may be present in a Traffic Engineering
Database (TED). This model may be extended to handle the additional
information described in this document to allow that information to
be read from network devices or exchanged between consumers of the
TED. Furthermore, links state export using BGP [BGP-LS] enables the
export of TE information from a network using BGP. Work could
realistically be done to extend BGP-LS to also carry the information
defined in this document.
This document defines a new sub-TLV of the Node Attribute TLV (Value It is not envisaged that the extensions defined in this document
5). The assignment of the following new type in the "Types for sub- will place substantial additional requirements on Operations,
TLVs of TE Node Attribute TLV" portion of the "Open Shortest Path Management, and Administration (OAM) mechanisms currently used to
First (OSPF) Traffic Engineering TLVs" registry is needed: diagnose and debug OSPF systems. However, tools that examine the
contents of opaque LSAs will need to be enhanced to handle these new
sub-TLVs.
This document introduces the following sub-TLVs of Node Attribute 8. IANA Considerations
TLV (Value 5):
Type sub-TLV IANA is requested to allocate new sub-TLVs as defined in Sections 2
and 3 as follows:
14 (suggested, to be assigned by IANA) Connectivity Matrix 8.1. Node Information
7.2. Link Information IANA maintains the "Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) Traffic
Engineering TLVs" registry with a sub-registry called "Types for
sub-TLVs of TE Node Attribute TLV". IANA is requested to assign a
new code point as follows:
This document defines a new sub-TLV of the TE Link TLV (Value 2). Type | Sub-TLV | Reference
The assignment of the following new type in the "Types for sub-TLVs -------+-------------------------------+------------
of TE Link TLV" portion of the "Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) TBD1 | Connectivity Matrix sub-TLV | [This.I-D]
Traffic Engineering TLVs" registry is needed:
Type sub-TLV 8.2. Link Information
26 (suggested, to be assigned by IANA) Port Label Restrictions IANA maintains the "Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) Traffic
Engineering TLVs" registry with a sub-registry called "Types for
sub-LVs of TE Link TLV". IANA is requested to assign a new code
point as follows:
8. References Type | Sub-TLV | Reference
-------+-----------------------------------+------------
TBD2 | Port Label Restrictions sub-TLV | [This.I-D]
8.1. Normative References 9. References
9.1. 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.
[RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and Yeung, D., "Traffic [RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and Yeung, D., "Traffic
Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,
September 2003. September 2003.
skipping to change at page 9, line 12 skipping to change at page 9, line 44
in 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.
[RFC5250] L. Berger, I. Bryskin, A. Zinin, R. Coltun "The OSPF [RFC5250] L. Berger, I. Bryskin, A. Zinin, R. Coltun "The OSPF
Opaque LSA Option", RFC 5250, July 2008. Opaque LSA Option", RFC 5250, July 2008.
[RFC5786] R. Aggarwal and K. Kompella,"Advertising a Router's Local [RFC5786] R. Aggarwal and K. Kompella,"Advertising a Router's Local
Addresses in OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions", Addresses in OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions",
RFC 5786, March 2010. RFC 5786, March 2010.
[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", draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode, Networks", work in progress: draft-ietf-ccamp-general-
work-in-progress. constraint-encode.
8.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[RFC6020] M. Bjorklund, Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
October 2010.
[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 PCE Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks
(WSON)", RFC 6163, February 2011. (WSON)", RFC 6163, February 2011.
[RFC6241] R. Enns, Ed., M. Bjorklund, Ed., Schoenwaelder, Ed., A.
Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)",
RFC 6241, June 2011.
[RFC6825] M. Miyazawa, T. Otani, K. Kumaki, T. Nadeau, "Traffic
Engineering Database Management Information Base in
Support of MPLS-TE/GMPLS", RFC 6825, January 2013.
[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", draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info, Switched Optical Networks", work in progress: draft-ietf-
work-in-progress. ccamp-rwa-info.
[RFC5920] L. Fang, Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS [RFC5920] L. Fang, Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010. Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
9. Authors' Addresses [BGP-LS] H. Gredler, J. Medved, S. Previdi, A. Farrel, S. Ray,
"North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and TE Information
using BGP", work in progress: draft-ietf-idr-ls-
distribution.
10. Contributors
Guoying Zhang
China Academy of Telecommunication Research of MII
11 Yue Tan Nan Jie Beijing, P.R.China
Phone: +86-10-68094272
Email: zhangguoying@mail.ritt.com.cn
Dan Li
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base
Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China
Phone: +86-755-28973237
Email: danli@huawei.com
Ming Chen
European Research Center
Huawei Technologies
Riesstr. 25, 80992 Munchen, Germany
Phone: 0049-89158834072
Email: minc@huawei.com
Yabin Ye
European Research Center
Huawei Technologies
Riesstr. 25, 80992 Munchen, Germany
Phone: 0049-89158834074
Email: yabin.ye@huawei.com
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
Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com
skipping to change at page 10, line 29 skipping to change at page 12, line 29
Phone: (510) 573-2237 Phone: (510) 573-2237
Email: gregb@grotto-networking.com Email: gregb@grotto-networking.com
Yunbin Xu Yunbin Xu
China Academy of Telecommunication Research of MII China Academy of Telecommunication Research of MII
11 Yue Tan Nan Jie Beijing, P.R.China 11 Yue Tan Nan Jie Beijing, P.R.China
Phone: +86-10-68094134 Phone: +86-10-68094134
Email: xuyunbin@mail.ritt.com.cn Email: xuyunbin@mail.ritt.com.cn
Guoying Zhang
China Academy of Telecommunication Research of MII
11 Yue Tan Nan Jie Beijing, P.R.China
Phone: +86-10-68094272
Email: zhangguoying@mail.ritt.com.cn
Dan Li
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base
Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China
Phone: +86-755-28973237
Email: danli@huawei.com
Ming Chen
European Research Center
Huawei Technologies
Riesstr. 25, 80992 Munchen, Germany
Phone: 0049-89158834072
Email: minc@huawei.com
Yabin Ye
European Research Center
Huawei Technologies
Riesstr. 25, 80992 Munchen, Germany
Phone: 0049-89158834074
Email: yabin.ye@huawei.com
Acknowledgment Acknowledgment
We thank Ming Chen and Yabin Ye from DICONNET Project who provided We thank Ming Chen and Yabin Ye from DICONNET Project who provided
valuable information for this document. valuable information for this document.
Intellectual Property Intellectual Property
The IETF Trust takes no position regarding the validity or scope of The IETF Trust takes no position regarding the validity or scope of
any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be
claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology
 End of changes. 30 change blocks. 
89 lines changed or deleted 127 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/