draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension-04.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension-05.txt 
Network Working Group H. Long, M.Ye Network Working Group H. Long, M.Ye
Internet Draft Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd Internet Draft Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
Intended status: Standards Track G. Mirsky Intended status: Standards Track G. Mirsky
Ericsson Ericsson
A.D'Alessandro A.D'Alessandro
Telecom Italia S.p.A Telecom Italia S.p.A
H. Shah H. Shah
Ciena Ciena
Expires: August 2016 February 19, 2016 Expires: December 2016 June 3, 2016
OSPF Routing Extension for Links with Variable Discrete Bandwidth OSPF-TE Link Availability Extension for Links with Variable Discrete
draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension-04.txt Bandwidth
draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension-05.txt
Abstract Abstract
A network may contain links with variable discrete bandwidth, e.g., A network may contain links with variable discrete bandwidth, e.g.,
copper, radio, etc. The bandwidth of such links may change copper, radio, etc. The bandwidth of such links may change
discretely in reaction to changing external environment. discretely in reaction to changing external environment.
Availability is typically used for describing such links during Availability is typically used for describing such links during
network planning. This document introduces an optional ISCD network planning. This document introduces an optional ISCD
Availability sub-TLV in OSPF routing protocol. This extension can be Availability sub-TLV to extend the Open Shortest Path First (OSPF)
used for route computation in a network that contains links with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) as defined in
variable discrete bandwidth. [RFC4203]. This extension can be used for route computation in a
network that contains links with variable discrete bandwidth.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 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 43 skipping to change at page 2, line 4
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 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
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 August 19, 2016.
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 6, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 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
warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................ 3 1. Introduction ................................................ 3
2. Overview .................................................... 3 2. Overview .................................................... 4
3. Extension to OSPF Routing Protocol........................... 4 3. Extension to OSPF Routing Protocol........................... 4
3.1. ISCD Availability sub-TLV............................... 4 3.1. ISCD Availability sub-TLV............................... 4
3.2. Signaling Process....................................... 5 3.2. Signaling Process....................................... 5
4. Security Considerations...................................... 5 4. Security Considerations...................................... 5
5. IANA Considerations ......................................... 5 5. IANA Considerations ......................................... 6
6. References .................................................. 5 6. References .................................................. 6
6.1. Normative References.................................... 5 6.1. Normative References.................................... 6
6.2. Informative References.................................. 6 6.2. Informative References.................................. 6
7. Acknowledgments ............................................. 6 7. Acknowledgments ............................................. 7
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].
The following acronyms are used in this draft: The following acronyms are used in this draft:
OSPF Open Shortest Path First GMPLS Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
PSN Packet Switched Network LSA Link State Advertisement
ISCD Interface Switching Capacity Descriptor
SNR Signal-to-noise Ratio LSP Label Switched Path
LSP Label Switched Path OSPF Open Shortest Path First
ISCD Interface Switching Capacity Descriptor
LSA Link State Advertisement PSN Packet Switched Network
SNR Signal-to-noise Ratio
SONET-SDH Synchronous Optical Network - Synchronous Digital
Hierarchy
SPF Shortest Path First
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Some data communication technologies, e.g., microwave, and copper, Some data communication technologies, e.g., microwave, and copper,
allow seamless change of maximum physical bandwidth through a set of allow seamless change of maximum physical bandwidth through a set of
known discrete values. The parameter availability [G.827, F.1703, known discrete values. The parameter availability [G.827], [F.1703],
P.530] is often used to describe the link capacity during network [P.530] is often used to describe the link capacity during network
planning. The availability is a time scale that the requested planning. The availability is a time scale, which is a proportion of
bandwidth is ensured. Assigning different availability classes to the operating time that the requested bandwidth is ensured.
different types of service over such kind of links provides more Assigning different availability classes to different types of
efficient planning of link capacity. To set up an LSP across these service over such kind of links provides more efficient planning of
links, availability information is required for the nodes to verify link capacity. To set up an LSP across these links, availability
bandwidth satisfaction and make bandwidth reservation. The information is required for the nodes to verify bandwidth
availability information should be inherited from the availability satisfaction and make bandwidth reservation. The availability
requirements of the services expected to be carried on the LSP. For information should be inherited from the availability requirements
example, voice service usually needs ''five nines'' availability, of the services expected to be carried on the LSP. For example,
while non-real time services may adequately perform at four or three voice service usually needs "five nines" availability, while non-
nines availability. Since different service types may need different real time services may adequately perform at four or three nines
availability. Since different service types may need different
availabilities guarantees, multiple <availability, bandwidth> pairs availabilities guarantees, multiple <availability, bandwidth> pairs
may be required when signaling. The signaling extension for links may be required when signaling. The signaling extension for links
with discrete bandwidth is defined in [ASTE]. with discrete bandwidth is defined in [ETPAI].
For the route computation, the availability information should be For the route computation, the availability information should be
provided along with bandwidth resource information. In this document, provided along with bandwidth resource information. In this document,
an extension on Interface Switching Capacity Descriptor (ISCD) an extension on Interface Switching Capacity Descriptor (ISCD)
[RFC4202] for availability information is defined to support in [RFC4202] for availability information is defined. The extension
routing signaling. The extension reuses the reserved field in the reuses the reserved field in the ISCD and also introduces an
ISCD and also introduces an optional Availability sub-TLV. optional Availability sub-TLV.
If there is a hop that cannot support the Availability sub-TLV, the
Availability sub-TLV should be ignored.
2. Overview 2. Overview
A node which has link(s) with variable bandwidth attached should A node which has link(s) with variable bandwidth attached should
contain a <bandwidth, availability> information list in its OSPF TE include a <bandwidth, availability> information list in its OSPF TE
LSA messages. The list provides the information that how much LSA messages. The list provides the mapping between the link nominal
bandwidth a link can support for a specified availability. This bandwidth and its availability level. This information is used for
information is used for path calculation by the node(s). path calculation by the node(s).The setup of a Label Switched Path
requires this piece of information to be flooded in the network and
To setup a label switching path (LSP), a node may collect link used by the nodes or the PCE for the path computation. The computed
information which is spread in OSPF TE LSA messages by network nodes path can then be provisioned via the signaling protocol.
to get know about the network topology, calculate out an LSP route
based on the network topology and send the calculated LSP route to
signaling to initiate a PATH/RESV message for setting up the LSP.
Availability information is required to carry in the signaling For links with variable discrete bandwidth, Availability information
message to better utilize the link bandwidth. The signaling is needed to be carried by the signaling for a better link bandwidth
extension for availability can be found in [ASTE]. utilization. Extensions to RSVP-TE can be found in [ETPAI].
3. Extension to OSPF Routing Protocol 3. Extension to OSPF-TE
3.1. ISCD Availability sub-TLV 3.1. ISCD Availability sub-TLV
The Interface Switching Capacity Descriptor (ISCD) sub-TLV is The ISCD sub-TLV is defined in Section 1.4 of [RFC4203]. The ISCD
defined in Section 1.4 of [RFC 4203]. The ISCD Availability sub-TLV Availability sub-TLV is defined in this document as a sub-TLV of
is defined in this document as a sub-TLV of ISCD. The Switching ISCD. The Switching Capability specific information field of ISCD
Capability specific information field of ISCD MAY include one or MAY include one or more ISCD Availability sub-TLV(s). The ISCD
more ISCD Availability sub-TLV(s). The ISCD Availability sub-TLV has Availability sub-TLV has the following format:
the following format:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Availability level | | Availability level |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LSP Bandwidth at Availability level n | | LSP Bandwidth at Availability level n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: 0x01, 16 bits; Type: TBA by IANA, suggested value is 0x01, 16 bits;
Length: 16 bits; Length: A 16 bits field that expresses the length of the TLV in
bytes;
Availability level: 32 bits Availability level: 32 bits
This field is a 32-bit IEEE floating point number which This field is a 32-bit IEEE floating point number which
describes the decimal value of availability guarantee of the describes the decimal value of availability guarantee of the
switching capacity in the ISCD object which has the AI value switching capacity in the ISCD object which has the AI value
equal to Index of this sub-TLV. The value MUST be less than equal to Index of this sub-TLV. The value MUST be less than
1. 1. The Availability level is usually expressed in the value
of 0.99/0.999/0.9999/0.99999.
LSP Bandwidth at Availability level n: 32 bits LSP Bandwidth at Availability level n: 32 bits
This field is a 32-bit IEEE floating point number which This field is a 32-bit IEEE floating point number which
describes the LSP Bandwidth at a certain Availability level describes the LSP Bandwidth at a certain Availability level
which was described in the Availability field. which was described in the Availability field. The units are
bytes per second.
3.2. Signaling Process 3.2. Processing Procedures
A node which has link(s) with variable bandwidth attached SHOULD A node which has link(s) with variable bandwidth attached SHOULD
contain one or more ISCD Availability sub-TLVs in its OSPF TE LSA contain one or more ISCD Availability sub-TLVs in its OSPF TE LSA
messages. Each ISCD Availability sub-TLV provides the information messages. Each ISCD Availability sub-TLV provides the information
about how much bandwidth a link can support for a specified about how much bandwidth a link can support for a specified
availability. This information SHOULD be used for path calculation availability. This information SHOULD be used for path calculation
by the node(s). by the node(s).
A node that doesn't support ISCD Availability sub-TLV SHOULD ignore A node that doesn't support ISCD Availability sub-TLV SHOULD ignore
ISCD Availability sub-TLV. ISCD Availability sub-TLV.
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce new security considerations to the This document extends [RFC4203]. As with [RFC4203], it specifies
existing OSPF protocol. the contents of Opaque LSAs in OSPFv2. As Opaque LSAs are not used
for Shortest Path First (SPF) computation or normal routing, the
extensions specified here have no direct effect on IP routing.
Tampering with GMPLS TE LSAs may have an effect on the underlying
transport (optical and/or Synchronous Optical Network - Synchronous
Digital Hierarchy (SONET-SDH)) network. [RFC3630] notes that the
security mechanisms described in [RFC2328] apply to Opaque LSAs
carried in OSPFv2. An analysis of the security of OSPF is provided
in [RFC6863] and applies to the extensions to OSPF as described in
this document. Any new mechanisms developed to protect the
transmission of information carried in Opaque LSAs will also
automatically protect the extensions defined in this document.
Please refer to [RFC5920] for details on security threats; defensive
techniques; monitoring, detection, and reporting of security attacks;
and requirements.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
This document introduces an Availability sub-TLV of the ISCD sub-TLV This document introduces an Availability sub-TLV of the ISCD sub-TLV
of the TE Link TLV in the TE Opaque LSA for OSPF v2. This document of the TE Link TLV in the TE Opaque LSA for OSPF v2. IANA will
proposes a suggested value for the Availability sub-TLV; it is created and maintain a new sub-registry, the "Types for sub-TLV of
recommended that the suggested value be granted by IANA. Initial Interface Switching Capability Descriptor" registry under the "Open
values are as follows: Shortest Path First (OSPF) Traffic Engineering TLVs" registry, see
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ospf-traffic-eng-tlvs.
Type Length Format Description This document proposes a suggested value for the Availability sub-
TLV; it is recommended that the suggested value be granted by IANA.
--- ---- ------------------ ----------- Type Description Reference
0 - Reserved Reserved value --- ------------------ -----------
0x01 8 see Section 3.2 Availability 0 Reserved [This ID]
0x01 Availability [This ID]
6. References 6. References
6.1. Normative References 6.1. Normative References
[RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions [RFC4202] Kompella, K. and Rekhter, Y. (Editors), "Routing
Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005.
[RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions
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.
[ASTE] H., Long, M., Ye, Mirsky, G., Alessandro, A., Shah, H., [ETPAI] H., Long, M., Ye, Mirsky, G., Alessandro, A., Shah, H.,
''Ethernet Traffic Parameters with Availability "Ethernet Traffic Parameters with Availability
Information'', Work in Progress, June, 2015 Information", Work in Progress, June, 2015
6.2. Informative References 6.2. Informative References
[RFC2210] Wroclawski, J., ''The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Services'', RFC 2210, September 1997. Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., ''Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels'', RFC 2119, March 1997
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.
V.,and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching [RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
(GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. 2003.
[RFC4202] Kompella, K. and Rekhter, Y. (Editors), ''Routing [RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks",
Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label RFC 5920, July 2010.
Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005.
[MCOS] Minei, I., Gan, D., Kompella, K., and X. Li, "Extensions [RFC6863] Hartman, S. and D. Zhang, "Analysis of OSPF Security
for Differentiated Services-aware Traffic Engineered According to the Keying and Authentication for Routing
LSPs", Work in Progress, June 2006. Protocols (KARP) Design Guide", RFC 6863, March 2013.
[G.827] ITU-T Recommendation, ''Availability performance parameters [G.827] ITU-T Recommendation, "Availability performance parameters
and objectives for end-to-end international constant bit- and objectives for end-to-end international constant bit-
rate digital paths'', September, 2003. rate digital paths", September, 2003.
[F.1703] ITU-R Recommendation, ''Availability objectives for real [F.1703] ITU-R Recommendation, "Availability objectives for real
digital fixed wireless links used in 27 500 km digital fixed wireless links used in 27 500 km
hypothetical reference paths and connections'', January, hypothetical reference paths and connections", January,
2005. 2005.
[P.530] ITU-R Recommendation,'' Propagation data and prediction [P.530] ITU-R Recommendation," Propagation data and prediction
methods required for the design of terrestrial line-of- methods required for the design of terrestrial line-of-
sight systems'', February, 2012 sight systems", February, 2012
[EN 302 217] ETSI standard, ''Fixed Radio Systems; Characteristics
and requirements for point-to-point equipment and
antennas'', April, 2009
7. Acknowledgments 7. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Lou Berger for his comments on the The authors would like to thank Acee Lindem, Daniele Ceccarelli, Lou
document. Berger for their comments on the document.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Hao Long Hao Long
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
No.1899, Xiyuan Avenue, Hi-tech Western District No.1899, Xiyuan Avenue, Hi-tech Western District
Chengdu 611731, P.R.China Chengdu 611731, P.R.China
Phone: +86-18615778750 Phone: +86-18615778750
Email: longhao@huawei.com Email: longhao@huawei.com
Min Ye Min Ye
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
 End of changes. 46 change blocks. 
108 lines changed or deleted 126 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/