draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension-06.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension-07.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: February 2017 August 19, 2016 Expires: April 2017 October 8, 2016
OSPF-TE Link Availability Extension for Links with Variable Discrete OSPF-TE Link Availability Extension for Links with Variable Discrete
Bandwidth Bandwidth
draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension-06.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension-07.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 to extend the Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) Availability sub-TLV to extend the Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS). This extension Switching (GMPLS) Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) routing protocol.
can be used for route computation in a network that contains links This extension can be used for route computation in a network that
with variable discrete bandwidth. contains links with variable discrete bandwidth. Note, this document
only covers the mechanisms by which the availability information is
distributed. The mechanisms by which availability information of a
link is determined and the use of the distributed information for
route computation are outside the scope of this document.
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 2, line 4 skipping to change at page 2, line 6
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 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 February 19, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 8, 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
skipping to change at page 2, line 38 skipping to change at page 2, line 41
1. Introduction ................................................ 3 1. Introduction ................................................ 3
2. Overview .................................................... 4 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 ......................................... 6 5. IANA Considerations ......................................... 6
6. References .................................................. 6 6. References .................................................. 6
6.1. Normative References.................................... 6 6.1. Normative References.................................... 6
6.2. Informative References.................................. 6 6.2. Informative References.................................. 7
7. Acknowledgments ............................................. 7 7. Acknowledgments ............................................. 8
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:
GMPLS Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching GMPLS Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
skipping to change at page 3, line 26 skipping to change at page 3, line 28
SNR Signal-to-noise Ratio SNR Signal-to-noise Ratio
SONET-SDH Synchronous Optical Network - Synchronous Digital SONET-SDH Synchronous Optical Network - Synchronous Digital
Hierarchy Hierarchy
SPF Shortest Path First SPF Shortest Path First
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Some data communication technologies, e.g., microwave, and copper, Some data plane technologies, e.g., microwave, and copper, allow
allow seamless change of maximum physical bandwidth through a set of seamless change of maximum physical bandwidth through a set of known
known discrete values. The parameter availability [G.827], [F.1703], discrete values. The parameter, availability, as described in
[P.530] is often used to describe the link capacity during network [G.827], [F.1703] and [P.530] is often used to describe the link
planning. The availability is a time scale, which is a proportion of capacity. The availability is a time scale, representing a proportion
the operating time that the requested bandwidth is ensured. of the operating time that the requested bandwidth is ensured. To
Assigning different availability classes to different types of set up an LSP across these links, availability information is
service over such kind of links provides more efficient planning of required by the nodes to verify the bandwidth before making a
link capacity. To set up an LSP across these links, availability bandwidth reservation. Assigning different availability classes
information is required for the nodes to verify bandwidth over such links provides for a more efficient planning of link
satisfaction and make bandwidth reservation. The availability capacity to support different types of services. The link
information should be inherited from the availability requirements availability information will be determined by the operator and
of the services expected to be carried on the LSP. For example, statically configured. It will usually be determined from the
voice service usually needs "five nines" availability, while non- availability requirements of the services expected to be carried on
real time services may adequately perform at four or three nines the LSP. For example, voice service usually needs ''five nines''
availability. Since different service types may need different availability, while non-real time services may adequately perform at
availabilities guarantees, multiple <availability, bandwidth> pairs four or three nines availability. For the route computation, both
may be required when signaling. The signaling extension for links the availability information and the bandwidth resource information
with discrete bandwidth is defined in [ETPAI]. are needed. Since different service types may need different
availability guarantees, multiple <availability, bandwidth> pairs
may be required to be associated with a link.
For the route computation, the availability information should be In this document, an extension on Interface Switching Capacity
provided along with bandwidth resource information. In this document, Descriptor (ISCD) [RFC4202] for availability information is defined.
an extension on Interface Switching Capacity Descriptor (ISCD) The signaling extension to support links with discrete bandwidth is
[RFC4202] for availability information is defined. defined in [ETPAI].
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
include a <bandwidth, availability> information list in its OSPF TE include a < availability, bandwidth> information list in its OSPF TE
LSA messages. The list provides the mapping between the link nominal LSA messages. The list provides the mapping between the link nominal
bandwidth and its availability level. This information is used for bandwidth and its availability level. This information is used for
path calculation by the node(s).The setup of a Label Switched Path 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 requires this information to be flooded in the network and used by
used by the nodes or the PCE for the path computation. The computed the nodes or the PCE for the path computation. In this document, an
path can then be provisioned via the signaling protocol. extension to Interface Switching Capacity Descriptor (ISCD) [RFC4202]
for availability information is defined. The computed path can then
be provisioned via the signaling protocol[ETPAI].
For links with variable discrete bandwidth, Availability information Note, the mechanisms described in this document only distribute
is needed to be carried by the signaling for a better link bandwidth availability information. The methods for measuring the information
utilization. Extensions to RSVP-TE can be found in [ETPAI]. or using the information for route computation are outside the scope
of this document.
3. Extension to OSPF-TE 3. TE Metric Extension to OSPF-TE
3.1. ISCD Availability sub-TLV 3.1. ISCD Availability sub-TLV
The ISCD sub-TLV is defined in Section 1.4 of [RFC4203]. The ISCD The ISCD sub-TLV is defined in Section 1.4 of [RFC4203]. The ISCD
Availability sub-TLV is defined in this document as a sub-TLV of Availability sub-TLV defined in this document is a sub-TLV of ISCD.
ISCD. The Switching Capability specific information field of ISCD The Switching Capability specific information field of ISCD MAY
MAY include one or more ISCD Availability sub-TLV(s). The ISCD include one or more ISCD Availability sub-TLV(s). The ISCD
Availability sub-TLV has the following format: Availability sub-TLV has 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 |
skipping to change at page 5, line 10 skipping to change at page 5, line 18
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 capability in the ISCD object. The value MUST be switching capability in the ISCD object. The value MUST be
less than 1. The Availability level is usually expressed in less than 1. The Availability level is usually expressed in
the value of 0.99/0.999/0.9999/0.99999. 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 for the Availability level
which was described in the Availability field. The units are represented in the Availability field. The units are bytes
bytes per second. per second.
3.2. Processing Procedures 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 does not support the ISCD Availability sub-TLV SHOULD
ISCD Availability sub-TLV. If a node who supports ISCD Availability ignore ISCD Availability sub-TLV but it SHOULD be included in LSAs
sub-TLVs doesn't receive the TLV, it indicates that the link is with sent to OSPF neighbors [RFC3630]. If a node who supports ISCD
fixed bandwidth, and the availability can be interpreted as the Availability sub-TLVs does not receive the TLV, it SHOULD assume
highest availability value, e.g., five nines. It's legal to send that the link is with fixed bandwidth, and the availability can be
multiple ISCD Availability sub-TLVs for the same availability level. interpreted as the highest availability value, e.g., five nines.
It's not allowed to send multiple ISCD Availability sub-TLVs for the
same availability level.
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
This document extends [RFC4203]. As with [RFC4203], it specifies This document does not introduce security issues beyond those
the contents of Opaque LSAs in OSPFv2. As Opaque LSAs are not used discussed in [RFC4203]. As with [RFC4203], it specifies the content
for Shortest Path First (SPF) computation or normal routing, the of an 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. extensions specified here have no direct effect on IP routing.
Tampering with GMPLS TE LSAs may have an effect on the underlying Tampering with GMPLS TE LSAs may have an impact on the ability to
transport (optical and/or Synchronous Optical Network - Synchronous set up connections in the underlying data plane network. As the
Digital Hierarchy (SONET-SDH)) network. [RFC3630] notes that the additional availability information may represent information that
security mechanisms described in [RFC2328] apply to Opaque LSAs an operator may wish to keep private, consideration should be given
carried in OSPFv2. An analysis of the security of OSPF is provided to securing this information.[RFC3630] notes that the security
in [RFC6863] and applies to the extensions to OSPF as described in mechanisms described in [RFC2328] apply to Opaque LSAs carried in
this document. Any new mechanisms developed to protect the OSPFv2. An analysis of the security of OSPF is provided in [RFC6863]
transmission of information carried in Opaque LSAs will also and applies to the extensions to OSPF as described in this document.
automatically protect the extensions defined 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 Please refer to [RFC5920] for details on security threats; defensive
techniques; monitoring, detection, and reporting of security attacks; techniques; monitoring, detection, and reporting of security attacks;
and requirements. 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. IANA will of the TE Link TLV in the TE Opaque LSA for OSPF v2. IANA is
created and maintain a new sub-registry, the "Types for sub-TLV of requested to create a new sub-registry, the ''Types for sub-TLV of
Interface Switching Capability Descriptor" registry under the "Open Interface Switching Capability Descriptor'' registry under the "Open
Shortest Path First (OSPF) Traffic Engineering TLVs" registry, see Shortest Path First (OSPF) Traffic Engineering TLVs" registry, see
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ospf-traffic-eng-tlvs. http://www.iana.org/assignments/ospf-traffic-eng-tlvs.
This document proposes a suggested value for the Availability sub- This document proposes a suggested value for the Availability sub-
TLV; it is recommended that the suggested value be granted by IANA. TLV; it is requested that the suggested value be granted by IANA.
Type Description Reference Type Description Reference
--- ------------------ ----------- --- ------------------ -----------
0 Reserved [This ID] 0 Reserved [This ID]
0x01 Availability [This ID] 0x01 Availability [This ID]
The registration procedure for this registry is Standards Action as The registration procedure for this registry is Standards Action as
defined in [RFC5226]. defined in [RFC5226].
6. References 6. References
6.1. Normative References 6.1. Normative References
[RFC4202] Kompella, K. and Rekhter, Y. (Editors), "Routing [RFC4202] Kompella, K. and Rekhter, Y. (Editors), ''Routing
Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005. Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005.
[RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions [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.
6.2. Informative References 6.2. Informative 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", RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels'', RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998. [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.
[RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering [RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, ''Traffic Engineering
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2'', RFC 3630, September
2003. 2003.
[RFC5226] Narten,T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an [RFC5226] Narten,T. and H. Alvestrand, ''Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226, May 2008. IANA Considerations Section in RFCs'', RFC 5226, May 2008.
[RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks", [RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks",
RFC 5920, July 2010. RFC 5920, July 2010.
[RFC6863] Hartman, S. and D. Zhang, "Analysis of OSPF Security [RFC6863] Hartman, S. and D. Zhang, "Analysis of OSPF Security
According to the Keying and Authentication for Routing According to the Keying and Authentication for Routing
Protocols (KARP) Design Guide", RFC 6863, March 2013. 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
[ETPAI] 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
7. Acknowledgments 7. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Acee Lindem, Daniele Ceccarelli, Lou The authors would like to thank Acee Lindem, Daniele Ceccarelli, Lou
Berger for their comments on the 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. 31 change blocks. 
83 lines changed or deleted 99 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/