Network Working Group                                     H. Long, M.Ye
Internet Draft                             Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
Intended status: Standards Track                              G. Mirsky
                                                               Ericsson
                                                         A.D'Alessandro
                                                   Telecom Italia S.p.A
                                                                H. Shah
                                                                  Ciena
Expires: August December 2016                                  February 19,                                     June 3, 2016

     OSPF Routing

    OSPF-TE Link Availability Extension for Links with Variable Discrete
                                Bandwidth
            draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension-04.txt
            draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension-05.txt

Abstract

   A network may contain links with variable discrete bandwidth, e.g.,
   copper, radio, etc. The bandwidth of such links may change
   discretely in reaction to changing external environment.
   Availability is typically used for describing such links during
   network planning. This document introduces an optional ISCD
   Availability sub-TLV to extend the Open Shortest Path First (OSPF)
   Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) as defined in OSPF routing protocol.
   [RFC4203]. This extension can be used for route computation in a
   network that contains links with variable discrete bandwidth.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
   months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
   at any time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
   reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 19, December 6, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors. All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document. Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
   respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
   document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
   Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
   warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ................................................ 3
   2. Overview .................................................... 3 4
   3. Extension to OSPF Routing Protocol........................... 4
      3.1. ISCD Availability sub-TLV............................... 4
      3.2. Signaling Process....................................... 5
   4. Security Considerations...................................... 5
   5. IANA Considerations ......................................... 5 6
   6. References .................................................. 5 6
      6.1. Normative References.................................... 5 6
      6.2. Informative References.................................. 6
   7. Acknowledgments ............................................. 6 7

Conventions used in this document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119].

   The following acronyms are used in this draft:

   GMPLS     Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching

   LSA       Link State Advertisement
   ISCD      Interface Switching Capacity Descriptor

   LSP       Label Switched Path

   OSPF      Open Shortest Path First

   PSN       Packet Switched Network

   SNR       Signal-to-noise Ratio

   LSP     Label Switched

   SONET-SDH Synchronous Optical Network - Synchronous Digital
   Hierarchy

   SPF       Shortest Path
   ISCD    Interface Switching Capacity Descriptor

   LSA     Link State Advertisement First

1. Introduction

   Some data communication technologies, e.g., microwave, and copper,
   allow seamless change of maximum physical bandwidth through a set of
   known discrete values. The parameter availability [G.827, F.1703,
   P.530] [G.827], [F.1703],
   [P.530] is often used to describe the link capacity during network
   planning. The availability is a time scale scale, which is a proportion of
   the operating time that the requested bandwidth is ensured.
   Assigning different availability classes to different types of
   service over such kind of links provides more efficient planning of
   link capacity. To set up an LSP across these links, availability
   information is required for the nodes to verify bandwidth
   satisfaction and make bandwidth reservation. The availability
   information should be inherited from the availability requirements
   of the services expected to be carried on the LSP. For example,
   voice service usually needs ''five nines'' "five nines" availability, while non-real non-
   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
   may be required when signaling. The signaling extension for links
   with discrete bandwidth is defined in [ASTE]. [ETPAI].

   For the route computation, the availability information should be
   provided along with bandwidth resource information. In this document,
   an extension on Interface Switching Capacity Descriptor (ISCD)
   [RFC4202] for availability information is defined to support in
   routing signaling. defined. The extension
   reuses the reserved field in the ISCD and also introduces an
   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

   A node which has link(s) with variable bandwidth attached should
   contain
   include a <bandwidth, availability> information list in its OSPF TE
   LSA messages. The list provides the information that how much
   bandwidth a mapping between the link can support for a specified availability. nominal
   bandwidth and its availability level. This information is used for
   path calculation by the node(s).

   To node(s).The setup of a label switching path (LSP), a node may collect link Label Switched Path
   requires this piece of information which is spread in OSPF TE LSA messages by network nodes to get know about the network topology, calculate out an LSP route
   based on be flooded in the network topology and send
   used by the calculated LSP route to
   signaling to initiate a PATH/RESV message nodes or the PCE for setting up the LSP. path computation. The computed
   path can then be provisioned via the signaling protocol.

   For links with variable discrete bandwidth, Availability information
   is required needed to carry in be carried by the signaling
   message to for a better utilize the link bandwidth. The signaling
   extension for availability bandwidth
   utilization. Extensions to RSVP-TE can be found in [ASTE]. [ETPAI].

3. Extension to OSPF Routing Protocol OSPF-TE

3.1. ISCD Availability sub-TLV

   The Interface Switching Capacity Descriptor (ISCD) ISCD sub-TLV is defined in Section 1.4 of [RFC 4203]. [RFC4203]. The ISCD
   Availability sub-TLV is defined in this document as a sub-TLV of
   ISCD. The Switching Capability specific information field of ISCD
   MAY include one or more ISCD Availability sub-TLV(s). The ISCD
   Availability sub-TLV has the following format:

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |               Type            |               Length          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                   Availability level                          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                   LSP Bandwidth at Availability level n       |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      Type: TBA by IANA, suggested value is 0x01, 16 bits;

      Length: A 16 bits; bits field that expresses the length of the TLV in
    bytes;

       Availability level: 32 bits

           This field is a 32-bit IEEE floating point number which
           describes the decimal value of availability guarantee of the
           switching capacity in the ISCD object which has the AI value
           equal to Index of this sub-TLV. The value MUST be less than
           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

           This field is a 32-bit IEEE floating point number which
           describes the LSP Bandwidth at a certain Availability level
           which was described in the Availability field. The units are
           bytes per second.

3.2. Signaling Process Processing Procedures

   A node which has link(s) with variable bandwidth attached SHOULD
   contain one or more ISCD Availability sub-TLVs in its OSPF TE LSA
   messages. Each ISCD Availability sub-TLV provides the information
   about how much bandwidth a link can support for a specified
   availability. This information SHOULD be used for path calculation
   by the node(s).

   A node that doesn't support ISCD Availability sub-TLV SHOULD ignore
   ISCD Availability sub-TLV.

4. Security Considerations

   This document does extends [RFC4203].  As with [RFC4203], it specifies
   the contents of Opaque LSAs in OSPFv2.  As Opaque LSAs are not introduce new 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 considerations mechanisms described in [RFC2328] apply to Opaque LSAs
   carried in OSPFv2.  An analysis of the
   existing security of OSPF protocol. 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

   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. IANA will
   created and maintain a new sub-registry, the "Types for sub-TLV of
   Interface Switching Capability Descriptor" registry under the "Open
   Shortest Path First (OSPF) Traffic Engineering TLVs" registry, see
   http://www.iana.org/assignments/ospf-traffic-eng-tlvs.

   This document proposes a suggested value for the Availability sub-TLV; sub-
   TLV; it is recommended that the suggested value be granted by IANA. Initial
   values are as follows:

   Type    Length            Format             Description                    Reference

   ---     ----              ------------------             -----------

   0        -                Reserved                Reserved value                       [This ID]

   0x01      8               see Section 3.2             Availability                   [This ID]

6. References

6.1. Normative References

   [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
             (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005.

    [ASTE]

   [ETPAI]   H., Long, M., Ye, Mirsky, G., Alessandro, A., Shah, H.,
             ''Ethernet
             "Ethernet Traffic Parameters with Availability
             Information'',
             Information", Work in Progress, June, 2015

6.2. Informative References

   [RFC2210] Wroclawski, J., ''The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated
             Services'', RFC 2210, September 1997.

   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., ''Key "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
             Requirement Levels'', Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997

   [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, 1997.

   [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.

   [RFC3630] Katz, D., Li, T., Srinivasan,
             V.,and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
             (TE) Extensions to RSVP for LSP
             Tunnels", OSPF Version 2", RFC 3209, December 2001.

   [RFC3473] Berger, 3630, September
             2003.

   [RFC5920] Fang, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
             (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
             Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks",
             RFC 3473, January 2003.

   [RFC4202] Kompella, K. 5920, July 2010.

   [RFC6863] Hartman, S. and Rekhter, Y. (Editors), ''Routing
             Extensions in Support D. Zhang, "Analysis of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
             Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005.

   [MCOS]    Minei, I., Gan, D., Kompella, K., OSPF Security
             According to the Keying and X. Li, "Extensions Authentication for Differentiated Services-aware Traffic Engineered
             LSPs", Work in Progress, June 2006. Routing
             Protocols (KARP) Design Guide", RFC 6863, March 2013.

   [G.827]  ITU-T Recommendation, ''Availability "Availability performance parameters
             and objectives for end-to-end international constant bit-
             rate digital paths'', paths", September, 2003.

   [F.1703]  ITU-R Recommendation, ''Availability "Availability objectives for real
             digital fixed wireless links used in 27 500 km
             hypothetical reference paths and connections'', connections", January,
             2005.

   [P.530]   ITU-R Recommendation,'' Recommendation," Propagation data and prediction
             methods required for the design of terrestrial line-of-
             sight systems'', 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

   The authors would like to thank Acee Lindem, Daniele Ceccarelli, Lou
   Berger for his their comments on the document.

   Authors' Addresses
   Hao Long
   Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
   No.1899, Xiyuan Avenue, Hi-tech Western District
   Chengdu 611731, P.R.China

   Phone: +86-18615778750
   Email: longhao@huawei.com

   Min Ye
   Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
   No.1899, Xiyuan Avenue, Hi-tech Western District
   Chengdu 611731, P.R.China

   Email: amy.yemin@huawei.com

   Greg Mirsky
   Ericsson

   Email: gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com

   Alessandro D'Alessandro
   Telecom Italia S.p.A

   Email: alessandro.dalessandro@telecomitalia.it

   Himanshu Shah
   Ciena Corp.
   3939 North First Street
   San Jose, CA 95134
   US

   Email: hshah@ciena.com