draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-04.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-05.txt 
Network Working Group Diego Caviglia CCAMP Working Group D. Caviglia
Internet Draft Dino Bramanti Internet-Draft D. Bramanti
Ericsson Expires: February 20, 2009 Ericsson
Dan Li D. Li
Huawei Huawei Technologies
Dave McDysan D. McDysan
Verizon Verizon
August 19, 2008
Intended Status: Informational
Expires: November, 19 2008 May 19, 2008
Requirements for the Conversion Between Permanent Connections and Requirements for the Conversion Between Permanent Connections and
Switched Connections in a Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching Switched Connections in a Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Network (GMPLS) Network
draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-04.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-05.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
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 months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 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 19, 2008. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 20, 2009.
Abstract Abstract
From a Carrier perspective, the possibility of turning a Permanent From a Carrier perspective, the possibility of turning a Permanent
Connection (PC) into a Soft Permanent Connection (SPC) and vice Connection (PC) into a Soft Permanent Connection (SPC) and vice
versa, without actually affecting Data Plane traffic being carried versa, without actually affecting Data Plane traffic being carried
over it, is a valuable option. In other terms, such operation can over it, is a valuable option. In other terms, such operation can be
be seen as a way of transferring the ownership and control of an seen as a way of transferring the ownership and control of an
existing and in-use Data Plane connection between the Management existing and in-use Data Plane connection between the Management
Plane and the Control Plane, leaving its Data Plane state untouched. Plane and the Control Plane, leaving its Data Plane state untouched.
This memo sets out the requirements for such procedures within a This memo sets out the requirements for such procedures within a
Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) network. Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) network.
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
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction..................................................3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Motivation....................................................3 2. Label Switched Path Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Label Switched Path Terminology...............................4 3. LSP within GMPLS Control Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. LSP within GMPLS Control Plane................................4 3.1. Resource Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Resource Ownership.......................................4 3.2. Setting Up a GMPLS Controlled Network . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Setting Up a GMPLS Controlled Network....................5 4. Typical Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Typical Use Cases.............................................6 4.1. PC to SC/SPC Conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. PC to SC/SPC Conversion..................................6 4.2. SC to PC Conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. SC to PC Conversion......................................7 5. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Requirements..................................................7 5.1. Data Plane LSP Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1. Data Plane LSP Consistency...............................7 5.2. No Disruption of User Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.2. No Disruption of User Traffic............................7 5.3. Transfer from Management Plane to Control Plane . . . . . 7
6.3. Transfer from Management Plane to Control Plane..........7 5.4. Transfer from Control Plane to Management Plane . . . . . 7
6.4. Transfer from Control Plane to Management Plane..........7 5.5. Synchronization of State Among Nodes During Conversion . . 7
6.5. Synchronization of state among nodes during conversion...8 5.6. Support of Soft Permanent Connections . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.6. Support of Soft Permanent Connections....................8 5.7. Failure of transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.7. Failure of Transfer......................................8 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Security Considerations.......................................8 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. IANA Considerations...........................................9 8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. References....................................................9 9. Acknoledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.1. Normative References.....................................9 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.2. Informative References...................................9 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. Acknowledgments..............................................9 10.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11. Authors' Addresses...........................................9 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
12. Full Copyright Statement....................................10 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 11
13. Intellectual Property Statement.............................11
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
In a typical, traditional transport network scenario, Data Plane In a typical, traditional transport network scenario, Data Plane
connections between two end-points are controlled by means of a connections between two end-points are controlled by means of a
Network Management System (NMS) operating within the Management Plane Network Management System (NMS) operating within the Management Plane
(MP). The NMS/MP is the owner of such transport connections, being (MP). The NMS/MP is the owner of such transport connections, being
responsible of their setup, teardown, and maintenance. Provisioned responsible of their setup, teardown, and maintenance. Provisioned
connections of this kind, initiated and managed by the Management connections of this type, initiated and managed by the Management
Plane, are known as Permanent Connections (PCs) [G.8081]. Plane, are known as Permanent Connections (PCs) [G.8081].
When the setup, teardown, and maintenance of connections are achieved When the setup, teardown, and maintenance of connections are achieved
by means of a signaling protocol owned by the Control Plane such by means of a signaling protocol owned by the Control Plane, such
connections are known as Switched Connections (SCs) [G.8081]. connections are known as Switched Connections (SCs) [G.8081].
In many deployments a hybrid connection type will be used. A Soft In many deployments, a hybrid connection type will be used. A Soft
Permanent Connection (SPC) is a combination of a permanent connection Permanent Connection (SPC) is a combination of a permanent connection
segment at the source user-to-network side, a permanent connection segment at the source user-to-network side, a permanent connection
segment at the destination user-to-network side, and a switched segment at the destination user-to-network side, and a switched
connection segment within the core network. The permanent parts of connection segment within the core network. The permanent parts of
the SPC are owned by the Management Plane, and the switched parts are the SPC are owned by the Management Plane, and the switched parts are
owned by the Control Plane [G.8081]. owned by the Control Plane [G.8081].
At least some aspects of a control plane initiated connection must be Note, some aspects of a control plane initiated connection must be
capable of being queried by the Management Plane. These aspects capable of being queried/controlled by the Management Plane. These
should be independent of how the connection was established. aspects should be independent of how the connection was established.
2. Motivation
The main motivation for this work is the LSP conversion from
Management Plane PC to Control Plane SC. The objective is to be able
to introduce a control plane into an existing network without
disrupting user traffic. An example of this is an operator
establishing PCs before the SC technology is mature, or before SC
interoperation is achieved between multiple implementations.
Conversion from the Management Plane to Control Plane is stated as
a mandatory requirement while the conversion from the Control Plane
to Management is a desirable feature, or desirable, feature. The
requirement for LSP conversion from Control Plane to Management Plane
is scoped as a back-out procedure.
A significant benefit of GMPLS in networks is discovering and
validating the current state of the network. For example, an operator
could invoke an SC, determine that the automatically discovered path
is good and then "pin" a connection to this specific path using the
SC to PC conversion procedures. This is attractive to network
operators who prefer the static nature of the path for a PC as
compared with the potentially dynamic path of an SC.
3. Label Switched Path Terminology 2. Label Switched Path Terminology
A Label Switched Path (LSP) has different semantics depending on the A Label Switched Path (LSP) has different semantics depending on the
plane in which it the term is used. plane in which it the term is used.
In the Data Plane, an LSP indicates the Data Plane forwarding path. In the Data Plane, an LSP indicates the Data Plane forwarding path.
It defines the forwarding or switching operations at each network It defines the forwarding or switching operations at each network
entity. It is the sequence of Data Plane resources (links, labels, entity. It is the sequence of Data Plane resources (links, labels,
cross-connects) that achieves end-to-end data transport. cross-connects) that achieves end-to-end data transport.
In the Management Plane, an LSP is the management state information In the Management Plane, an LSP is the management state information
(such as the connection attributes and path information) associated (such as the connection attributes and path information) associated
with and necessary for the creation and maintenance of a Data Plane with and necessary for the creation and maintenance of a Data Plane
connection. connection.
In the Control Plane, an LSP is the Control Plane state information In the Control Plane, an LSP is the Control Plane state information
(such as RSVP-TE [RFC3473] Path and Resv state) associated with and (such as RSVP-TE Path and Resv state) associated with and necessary
necessary for the creation and maintenance of a Data Plane for the creation and maintenance of a Data Plane connection.
connection.
A Permanent Connection has an LSP presence in the Data Plane and the A Permanent Connection has an LSP presence in the Data Plane and the
Management Plane. A Switched Connection has an LSP presence in the Management Plane. A Switched Connection has an LSP presence in the
Data Plane and the Control Plane. An SPC has LSP presence in the Data Data Plane and the Control Plane. An SPC has LSP presence in the
Plane for its entire length, but has Management Plane presence for Data Plane for its entire length, but has Management Plane presence
part of its length and Control Plane presence for part of its length. for part of its length and Control Plane presence for part of its
length.
In this document, when we talk about the LSP conversion between In this document, when we discuss the LSP conversion between
Management Plane and Control Plane, we mainly focus on the conversion Management Plane and Control Plane, we mainly focus on the conversion
of Control Plane state information and Management Plane state of Control Plane state information and Management Plane state
information. information.
4. LSP within GMPLS Control Plane 3. LSP within GMPLS Control Plane
Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) [RFC3471], Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) (, , and ) defines
[RFC3473], [RFC3945] defines a powerful Control Plane architecture a Control Plane architecture for transport networks. This includes
for transport networks. This includes both routing and signaling both routing and signaling protocols for the creation and maintenance
protocols for the creation and maintenance of Label Switched Paths of Label Switched Paths (LSPs) in networks whose Data Plane is based
(LSPs) in networks whose Data Plane is based on different on different technologies such as TDM (SDH/SONET G.709 at ODUk level)
technologies such as TDM (SDH/SONET G.709 at ODUk level) transport transport and WDM (G.709 OCh level).
and WDM (G.709 OCh level).
4.1. Resource Ownership 3.1. Resource Ownership
A resource used by an LSP is said to be 'owned' by the plane that was A resource used by an LSP is said to be 'owned' by the plane that was
used to set up the LSP through that part of the network. Thus, all used to set up the LSP through that part of the network. Thus, all
the resources used by a Permanent Connection are owned by the the resources used by a Permanent Connection are owned by the
Management Plane, and all the resources used by a Switched Connection Management Plane, and all the resources used by a Switched Connection
are owned by the Control Plane. The resources used by an SPC are are owned by the Control Plane. The resources used by an SPC are
divided between the Management Plane (for the resources used by the divided between the Management Plane (for the resources used by the
permanent connection segments at the edge of the network) and the permanent connection segments at the edge of the network) and the
Control Plane (for the resources used by the switched segment in the Control Plane (for the resources used by the switched segments in the
middle of the network). middle of the network).
The division of resources available for ownership by the Management The division of resources available for ownership by the Management
and Control Planes is an architectural issue. A carrier may decide to and Control Planes is an architectural issue. A carrier may decide
pre-partition the resources at a network entity so that LSPs under to pre-partition the resources at a network entity so that LSPs under
Management Plane control use one set of resources and LSPs under Management Plane control use one set of resources and LSPs under
Control Plane control use another set of resources. Other carriers Control Plane control use another set of resources. Other carriers
may choose to make this distinction resource-by-resource as LSPs are may choose to make this distinction resource-by-resource as LSPs are
established. established.
It should be noted, however, that even when a resource is owned by It should be noted, however, that even when a resource is owned by
the Control Plane it will usually be the case that the Management the Control Plane it will usually be the case that the Management
Plane has a controlling interest in the resource. Consider e.g. the Plane has a controlling interest in the resource. For example, the
basic safety requirements that imply that management commands must be basic safety requirements that management commands must be able to
available to set laser out of service. set a laser out of service.
4.2. Setting Up a GMPLS Controlled Network 3.2. Setting Up a GMPLS Controlled Network
The implementation of a new network using a Generalized Multiprotocol The implementation of a new network using a Generalized Multiprotocol
Label Switching (GMPLS) Control Plane may be considered as a green Label Switching (GMPLS) Control Plane may be considered as a green
field deployment. But in many cases it is desirable to introduce a field deployment. But in many cases it is desirable to introduce a
GMPLS Control Plane into an existing transport network that is GMPLS Control Plane into an existing transport network that is
already populated with permanent connections under Management Plane already populated with permanent connections under Management Plane
control. control.
In a mixed scenario, Permanent Connections owned by the Management In a mixed scenario, Permanent Connections owned by the Management
Plane and Switched Connections owned by the Control Plane have to Plane and Switched Connections owned by the Control Plane have to
skipping to change at page 5, line 43 skipping to change at page 5, line 27
It is also desirable to transfer the control of connections from the It is also desirable to transfer the control of connections from the
Management Plane to the Control Plane so that connections that were Management Plane to the Control Plane so that connections that were
originally under the control of an NMS are now under the control of originally under the control of an NMS are now under the control of
the GMPLS protocols. In case such connections are in service, such the GMPLS protocols. In case such connections are in service, such
conversion must be performed in a way that does not affect traffic. conversion must be performed in a way that does not affect traffic.
Since attempts to move a LSP under GMPLS control might fail due to a Since attempts to move a LSP under GMPLS control might fail due to a
number of reasons outside the scope of this draft, it is also highly number of reasons outside the scope of this draft, it is also highly
desirable to have a mechanism to convert the control of an LSP back desirable to have a mechanism to convert the control of an LSP back
to the Management Plane, in fact undoing the whole process for to the Management Plane.
reasons summarized in the motivation section.
Note that a Permanent Connection may be converted to a Switched Note that a Permanent Connection may be converted to a Switched
Connection or to an SPC, and an SPC may be converted to a Switched Connection or to an SPC, and an SPC may be converted to a Switched
Connection as well (PC to SC, PC to SPC, and SPC to SC). So the Connection as well (PC to SC, PC to SPC, and SPC to SC). So the
reverse mappings may be also needed (SC to PC, SC to SPC, and SPC to reverse mappings may be also needed (SC to PC, SC to SPC, and SPC to
PC). PC).
Conversion to/from control/management will occur in many MIBs or Conversion to/from control/management will occur in MIBs or
network management data structures where the owner of the hop level
information (e.g., cross-connect, label assignment, label stacking, information (e.g., cross-connect, label assignment, label stacking,
etc.) is identified as either a specific control protocol, or manual etc.) is identified as either a specific control protocol, or manual
(i.e., NMS). When converting, this hop-level owner information needs (i.e., NMS). When converting, this hop-level owner information needs
to be completed for all hops. If conversion cannot be done for all to be completed for all hops. If conversion cannot be done for all
hops, then the conversion must be done for no hops and the state of hops, then the conversion must be done for no hops and the state of
the hop level information restored to that before the conversion was the hop level information restored to that before the conversion was
attempted, and an error condition reported to the management system. attempted, and an error condition reported to the management system.
In either case of conversion, the Management Plane shall initiate the In either case of conversion, the Management Plane shall initiate the
change. When converting from a PC to an SC, the management system change. When converting from a PC to an SC, the management system
must somehow indicate to each hop that a control protocol is now to must indicate to each hop that a control protocol is now to be used,
be used, and then configure the data needed by control protocol at and then configure the data needed by the control protocol at the
the connection endpoints. When converting from an SC to a PC, the connection endpoints. When converting from an SC to a PC, the
Management Plane must change the owner of each hop. Somehow, then the Management Plane must change the owner of each hop. Then the
instance in the Control Plane must be removed without affecting the instance in the Control Plane must be removed without affecting the
Data Plane. Data Plane.
The case where the CP and/or MP fail at one or more nodes during the The case where the CP and/or MP fail at one or more nodes during the
conversion procedure must be handled in the solution. If the network conversion procedure must be handled in the solution. If the network
is viewed as the database of record (including data, control and is viewed as the database of record (including data, control and
Management Plane elements), then a solution that has procedures Management Plane elements), then a solution that has procedures
similar to those of a two-phase database commit process may be needed similar to those of a two-phase database commit process may be needed
to ensure integrity and support the need to revert to the state prior to ensure integrity and support the need to revert to the state prior
to the conversion attempt if there is a CP and/or MP failure during to the conversion attempt if there is a CP and/or MP failure during
the attempted conversion. the attempted conversion.
5. Typical Use Cases 4. Typical Use Cases
5.1. PC to SC/SPC Conversion 4.1. PC to SC/SPC Conversion
A typical scenario where a PC to SC (or SPC) procedure can be a A typical scenario where a PC to SC (or SPC) procedure can be a
useful option is at the initial stage of Control Plane deployment in useful option is at the initial stage of Control Plane deployment in
an existing network. In such a case all the network connections, an existing network. In such a case, all the network connections,
possibly carrying traffic, are already set up as PCs and are owned by possibly carrying traffic, are already set up as PCs and are owned by
the Management Plane. the Management Plane.
The next step in this conversion process presents a similar scenario At a latter stage, when the network is partially controlled by the
where the network is partially controlled by the Management Plane and Management Plane and partially controlled by the Control Plane (PCs
partially controlled by the Control Plane (PCs and SCs/SPCs coexist). and SCs/SPCs coexist) and it is desired to extend the control plane,
a PC to SC procedure can be used to transfer a PC or SPC to a SC.
In this case an upgrade of the Control Plane functionalities, such as
new signaling extensions, may be required.
In both cases the point is that a connection, set up and owned by In both cases, a connection, set up and owned by the Management
the Management Plane, may need to be transferred to Control Plane Plane, needs to be transferred to Control Plane control. If a
control. If a connection is carrying traffic, its transfer has to be connection is carrying traffic, its control transfer has to be done
done without any disruption to the Data Plane traffic. without any disruption to the Data Plane traffic.
5.2. SC to PC Conversion 4.2. SC to PC Conversion
The main reason making a SC to PC conversion interesting is to give The main need for a SC to PC conversion is to give an operator the
an operator the chance of undoing somehow the action represented by capability of undoing the action of the above introduced PC to SC
the above introduced PC to SC conversion. conversion.
In other words the SC to PC conversion is a back-out procedure and as In other words, the SC to PC conversion is a back-out procedure and
such is not specified as mandatory in this document, but is still a as such is not specified as mandatory in this document, but it is
highly desirable function. still a highly desirable function.
Again it is worth stressing the requirement that such 'SPC to PC' Again it is worth stressing the requirement that such 'SPC to PC'
conversion is achieved without any effect on the associated Data conversion needs to be achieved without any effect on the associated
Plane state so that the connection continues to be operational and to Data Plane state so that the connection continues to be operational
carry traffic during the transition. and to carry traffic during the transition.
6. Requirements 5. Requirements
This section sets out the basic requirements for procedures and This section sets out the basic requirements for procedures and
processes that are used to perform the functions this document is processes that are used to perform the functions of this document.
about. Notation form [RFC2119] is used to clarify the level of each Notation from [RFC2119] is used to clarify the level of each
requirement. requirement.
6.1. Data Plane LSP Consistency 5.1. Data Plane LSP Consistency
The Data Plane LSP, staying in place throughout the whole transfer The Data Plane LSP MUST stay in place throughout the whole control
process, MUST follow the same path through the network and MUST use transfer process. It MUST follow the same path through the network
the same network resources. and MUST use the same network resources.
6.2. No Disruption of User Traffic 5.2. No Disruption of User Traffic
The transfer process MUST NOT cause any disruption of user traffic The transfer process MUST NOT cause any disruption of user traffic
flowing over the LSP whose control is being transferred or any other flowing over the LSP whose control is being transferred or any other
LSP in the network. LSP in the network.
SC to PC conversion and vice-versa SHALL occur without generating SC to PC conversion and vice-versa SHALL occur without generating
Management Plane alarms toward the end users at neither the UNI alarms towards the end users or the NMS.
endpoints nor the NMS.
6.3. Transfer from Management Plane to Control Plane 5.3. Transfer from Management Plane to Control Plane
It MUST be possible to transfer the ownership of an LSP from the It MUST be possible to transfer the ownership of an LSP from the
Management Plane to the Control Plane Management Plane to the Control Plane
6.4. Transfer from Control Plane to Management Plane 5.4. Transfer from Control Plane to Management Plane
It SHOULD be possible to transfer the ownership of an LSP from the It SHOULD be possible to transfer the ownership of an LSP from the
Control Plane to the Management Plane. Control Plane to the Management Plane.
6.5. Synchronization of State Among Nodes During Conversion 5.5. Synchronization of State Among Nodes During Conversion
It MUST be assured that the state of the LSP is synchronized among It MUST be assured that the state of the LSP is synchronized among
all nodes traversed by it before the conversion in considered all nodes traversed by it before the conversion is considered
complete. complete.
6.6. Support of Soft Permanent Connections 5.6. Support of Soft Permanent Connections
It MUST be possible to segment an LSP such that it is converted to or It MUST be possible to segment an LSP such that it can be converted
from an SPC. to or from an SPC.
6.7. Failure of Transfer 5.7. Failure of transfer
It MUST be possible for a transfer from one plane to the other to It MUST be possible for a transfer from one plane to the other to
fail in a non-destructive way leaving the ownership unchanged and fail in a non-destructive way leaving the ownership unchanged and
without impacting traffic. without impacting traffic.
If during the transfer procedure some issues arise causing an If during the transfer procedure issues arise causing an unsuccessful
unsuccessful or incomplete, unexpected result it MUST be assured that or unexpected result, it MUST be assured:
at the end:
1. Traffic over Data Plane is not affected 1. Traffic over Data Plane is not affected
2. The LSP status is consistent in all the Transport Network Elements 2. The LSP status is consistent in all the network nodes involved in
(TNEs) involved in the procedure the procedure
Point 2 above assures that, even in case of some failure during the Point 2, above, assures that even in case of some failure during the
transfer, the state of the affected LSP is brought back to the transfer, the state of the affected LSP is brought back to the
initial one and it is fully under control of the owning entity. initial one and it is fully under control of the owning entity.
7. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
Allowing control of an LSP to be taken away from a plane introduces Allowing control of an LSP to be taken away from a plane introduces a
another way in which services may be disrupted by malicious possible way in which services may be disrupted by malicious
intervention. intervention.
It is expected that any solution to the requirements in this document A solution to the requirements in this document will utilize the
will utilize the security mechanisms inherent in the Management Plane security mechanisms supported by the Management Plane and GMPLS
and Control Plane protocols, and no new security mechanisms are Control Plane protocols, and no new security requirements over the
needed if these tools are correctly used. general requirements described in [RFC3945] are introduced. It is
expected that solution documents will include an analysis of the
security issues introduced by any new protocol extensions.
If SNMP MIBs are used for configuration, then the Management Plane If SNMP MIBs are used for configuration, then the Management Plane
should support at least authentication for PC<>SC configuration should support authentication for PC-SC configuration changes as
changes as specified in [RFC3414]. specified in [RFC3414].
Note also that implementations may enable policy components to help Note also that implementations may support policy components to
determine whether individual LSPs may be transferred between planes. determine whether individual LSPs may be transferred between planes.
8. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
This requirement document makes no requests for IANA action. This requirements document makes no requests for IANA action.
9. References 8. Contributors
Nicola Ciulli
NextWorks
Corso Italia 116
56125 Pisa, Italy
Email: n.ciulli@nextworks.it
9.1. Normative References Han Li
China Mobile Communications Co.
53 A Xibianmennei Ave. Xuanwu District
Deijing 100053 P.R. China
Phone: 10-66006688 ext.3092
Email: lihan@chinamobile.com
Daniele Ceccarelli
Ericsson
Via A. Negrone 1/A
Genova-Sestri Ponente, Italy
Phone: +390106002515
Email: daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com
9. Acknoledgments
We wish to thank the following people (listed randomly): Adrian
Farrel for his editorial assistance to prepare this draft for
publication, Dean Cheng, Julien Meuric, Dimitri Papadimitriou,
Deborah Brungard, Igor Bryskin, Lou Berger, Don Fedyk, John Drake and
Vijay Pandian for their suggestions and comments on the CCAMP list.
10. References
10.1. 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.
[G.8081] ITU-T, "Terms and definitions for Automatically Switched [G.8081] ITU-T, "Terms and definitions for Automatically Switched
Optical Networks (ASON)," Recommendation G.8081/Y.1353, Optical Networks (ASON)," Recommendation G.8081/Y.1353,
[RFC3414] U. Blumenthal, B. Wijnen, "User-based Security Model(USM) [RFC3414] Blumenthal, U. and B. Wijnen, "User-based Security Model
for version 3 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (USM) for version 3 of the Simple Network Management
(SNMPv3)," RFC 3414, December 2002 Protocol (SNMPv3)", STD 62, RFC 3414, December 2002.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC3471] L. Berger (Ed.) "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC
3471, January 2003
[RFC3473] L. Berger (Ed.) "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label 10.2. Informational References
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC
3473, January 2003
[RFC3945] E. Mannie (Ed.) "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label [RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004 (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471,
January 2003.
10. Acknowledgments [RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
We whish to thank the following people (listed randomly) Adrian [RFC3945] Mannie, E., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
Farrel for his editorial assistance to prepare this draft for (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004.
publication, Dean Cheng and Julien Meuric, Dimitri Papadimitriou,
Deborah Brungard, Igor Bryskin, Lou Berger, Don Fedyk, John Drake and
Vijay Pandian for their suggestions and comments on the CCAMP list.
11. Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Diego Caviglia Diego Caviglia
Ericsson Ericsson
Via A. Negrone 1/A Via A. Negrone 1/A
Genova-Sestri Ponente, Italy Genova - Sestri Ponente
Italy
Phone: +390106003738
Email: diego.caviglia@ericsson.com Email: diego.caviglia@ericsson.com
Dino Bramanti Dino Bramanti
Ericsson Ericsson
Via Moruzzi 1 Via Moruzzi 1 C/O Area Ricerca CNR
C/O Area Ricerca CNR Pisa
Pisa, Italy Italy
Email: dino.bramanti@ericsson.com Email: dino.bramanti@ericsson.com
Nicola Ciulli
NextWorks
Corso Italia 116
56125 Pisa, Italy
Email: n.ciulli@nextworks.it
Dan Li Dan Li
Huawei Technologies Co., LTD. Huawei Technologies Co., LTD.
Huawei Base, Bantian, Longgang, Shenzhen 518129
Shenzhen 518129 P.R.Chin Huawei Base, Bantian, Longgang
Italy
Phone: +86-755-28972910
Email: danli@huawei.com
Han Li
China Mobile Communications Co.
53A Xibianmennei Ave. Xuanwu District
Beijing 100053 P.R. China
Phone: +86-10-66006688 ext.3092 Email: dan.li@huawei.com
Email: lihan@chinamobile.com
Dave McDysan Dave McDysan
Verizon Verizon
Ashburn, VA, USA Ashburn, VA
USA
Email: dave.mcdysan@verizon.com Email: dave.mcdysan@verizon.com
12. Full Copyright Statement Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights. retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
13. Intellectual Property Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
 End of changes. 80 change blocks. 
226 lines changed or deleted 202 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.35. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/