draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-05.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt 
CCAMP Working Group D. Caviglia CCAMP Working Group D. Caviglia
Internet-Draft D. Bramanti Internet-Draft D. Bramanti
Expires: February 20, 2009 Ericsson Intended status: Informational Ericsson
D. Li Expires: March 19, 2009 D. Li
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies Co., LTD.
D. McDysan D. McDysan
Verizon Verizon
August 19, 2008 September 15, 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-05.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of 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
skipping to change at page 1, line 41 skipping to change at page 1, line 41
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 February 20, 2009. This Internet-Draft will expire on March 15, 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 be over it, is a valuable option. In other terms, such operation can 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 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Label Switched Path Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Label Switched Path Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. LSP within GMPLS Control Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. LSP within GMPLS Control Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Resource Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. Resource Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Setting Up a GMPLS Controlled Network . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. Setting Up a GMPLS Controlled Network . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Typical Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Typical Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. PC to SC/SPC Conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1. PC to SC/SPC Conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
skipping to change at page 2, line 36 skipping to change at page 2, line 36
5.1. Data Plane LSP Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1. Data Plane LSP Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. No Disruption of User Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.2. No Disruption of User Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.3. Transfer from Management Plane to Control Plane . . . . . 7 5.3. Transfer from Management Plane to Control Plane . . . . . 7
5.4. Transfer from Control Plane to Management Plane . . . . . 7 5.4. Transfer from Control Plane to Management Plane . . . . . 7
5.5. Synchronization of State Among Nodes During Conversion . . 7 5.5. Synchronization of State Among Nodes During Conversion . . 7
5.6. Support of Soft Permanent Connections . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.6. Support of Soft Permanent Connections . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.7. Failure of transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.7. Failure of transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. Acknoledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 11 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 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
skipping to change at page 3, line 34 skipping to change at page 3, line 34
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].
Note, 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/controlled by the Management Plane. These capable of being queried/controlled by the Management Plane. These
aspects should be independent of how the connection was established. aspects should be independent of how the connection was established.
2. 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 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 Path and Resv state) associated with and necessary (such as RSVP-TE [RFC3473] Path and Resv state) associated with and
for the creation and maintenance of a Data Plane connection. necessary for the creation and maintenance of a Data Plane
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 Plane and the Control Plane. An SPC has LSP presence in the
Data Plane for its entire length, but has Management Plane presence Data Plane for its entire length, but has Management Plane presence
for part of its length and Control Plane presence for part of its for part of its length and Control Plane presence for part of its
length. length.
In this document, when we discuss 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.
3. LSP within GMPLS Control Plane 3. LSP within GMPLS Control Plane
Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) (, , and ) defines Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) ([RFC3471],
a Control Plane architecture for transport networks. This includes [RFC3473], and [RFC3945]) defines a Control Plane architecture for
both routing and signaling protocols for the creation and maintenance transport networks. This includes both routing and signaling
of Label Switched Paths (LSPs) in networks whose Data Plane is based protocols for the creation and maintenance of Label Switched Paths
on different technologies such as TDM (SDH/SONET G.709 at ODUk level) (LSPs) in networks whose Data Plane is based on different
transport and WDM (G.709 OCh level). technologies such as TDM (SDH/SONET, G.709 at ODUk level) transport
and WDM (G.709 OCh level).
3.1. 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
skipping to change at page 7, line 30 skipping to change at page 7, line 30
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
alarms towards the end users or the NMS. alarms towards the end users or the NMS.
5.3. 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.
5.4. 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.
5.5. 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 is considered all nodes traversed by it before the conversion is considered
skipping to change at page 9, line 24 skipping to change at page 9, line 24
Phone: 10-66006688 ext.3092 Phone: 10-66006688 ext.3092
Email: lihan@chinamobile.com Email: lihan@chinamobile.com
Daniele Ceccarelli Daniele Ceccarelli
Ericsson Ericsson
Via A. Negrone 1/A Via A. Negrone 1/A
Genova-Sestri Ponente, Italy Genova-Sestri Ponente, Italy
Phone: +390106002515 Phone: +390106002515
Email: daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com Email: daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com
9. Acknoledgments 9. Acknowledgements
We wish to thank the following people (listed randomly): Adrian We wish to thank the following people (listed randomly): Adrian
Farrel for his editorial assistance to prepare this draft for Farrel for his editorial assistance to prepare this draft for
publication, Dean Cheng, Julien Meuric, Dimitri Papadimitriou, publication, Dean Cheng, Julien Meuric, Dimitri Papadimitriou,
Deborah Brungard, Igor Bryskin, Lou Berger, Don Fedyk, John Drake and Deborah Brungard, Igor Bryskin, Lou Berger, Don Fedyk, John Drake and
Vijay Pandian for their suggestions and comments on the CCAMP list. Vijay Pandian for their suggestions and comments on the CCAMP list.
10. References 10. References
10.1. Normative 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. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[G.8081] ITU-T, "Terms and definitions for Automatically Switched
Optical Networks (ASON)," Recommendation G.8081/Y.1353,
[RFC3414] Blumenthal, U. and B. Wijnen, "User-based Security Model [RFC3414] Blumenthal, U. and B. Wijnen, "User-based Security Model
(USM) for version 3 of the Simple Network Management (USM) for version 3 of the Simple Network Management
Protocol (SNMPv3)", STD 62, RFC 3414, December 2002. Protocol (SNMPv3)", STD 62, RFC 3414, December 2002.
10.2. Informational References 10.2. Informational References
[RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching [RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471,
January 2003. January 2003.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching [RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC3945] Mannie, E., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching [RFC3945] Mannie, E., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004. (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004.
[G.8081] International Telecommunications Union, "Terms and
definitions for Automatically Switched Optical Networks
(ASON)", Recommendation G.8081/Y.1353, June 2004.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Diego Caviglia Diego Caviglia
Ericsson Ericsson
Via A. Negrone 1/A Via A. Negrone 1/A
Genova - Sestri Ponente Genova - Sestri Ponente
Italy Italy
Email: diego.caviglia@ericsson.com Email: diego.caviglia@ericsson.com
skipping to change at page 10, line 32 skipping to change at page 10, line 36
Via Moruzzi 1 C/O Area Ricerca CNR Via Moruzzi 1 C/O Area Ricerca CNR
Pisa Pisa
Italy Italy
Email: dino.bramanti@ericsson.com Email: dino.bramanti@ericsson.com
Dan Li Dan Li
Huawei Technologies Co., LTD. Huawei Technologies Co., LTD.
Shenzhen 518129 Shenzhen 518129
Huawei Base, Bantian, Longgang Huawei Base, Bantian, Longgang
Italy China
Email: dan.li@huawei.com Email: dan.li@huawei.com
Dave McDysan Dave McDysan
Verizon Verizon
Ashburn, VA Ashburn, VA
USA USA
Email: dave.mcdysan@verizon.com Email: dave.mcdysan@verizon.com
 End of changes. 14 change blocks. 
22 lines changed or deleted 26 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/