draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-reqts-00.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-reqts-01.txt 
Network Working Group Network Working Group Kenji Kumaki, Ed.
Internet Draft Kenji Kumaki, Ed Internet Draft KDDI Corporation
Proposed Category: Informational KDDI Corporation Intended Status: Informational
Expires: June, 2007 Tomohiro Otani Expires: January, 2008
KDDI R&D Labs
Shuichi Okamoto July, 2007
NICT
Kazuhiro Fujihara
Yuichi Ikejiri
NTT
Communications
December, 2006
Interworking Requirements to Support operation of MPLS-TE over GMPLS Interworking Requirements to Support operation of MPLS-TE over GMPLS
networks Networks
draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-reqts-00.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-reqts-01.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 44 skipping to change at page 1, line 38
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 June, 2007.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract Abstract
This document describes a framework and Service Provider requirements Operation of an Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) traffic
for operating Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) traffic engineering (TE) network as a client network to a Generalized MPLS
engineering (TE) networks over Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks. (GMPLS) network has enhanced operational capabilities compared to
those provided by a co-existent protocol model (ships in the night).
Operation of an MPLS-TE network as a client network to a GMPLS
network has enhanced operational capabilities than provided by a co-
existent protocol model (ships in the night).
The GMPLS network may be a packet or a non-packet network, and may The GMPLS network may be a packet or a non-packet network, and may
itself be a multi-layer network supporting both packet and non-packet itself be a multi-layer network supporting both packet and non-packet
technologies. A MPLS-TE Label Switched Path (LSP) originates and technologies. A MPLS-TE Label Switched Path (LSP) originates and
terminates on an MPLS Label Switching Router (LSR). The GMPLS network terminates on an MPLS Label Switching Router (LSR). The GMPLS network
provides transparent transport for the end-to-end MPLS-TE LSP. provides transparent transport for the end-to-end MPLS-TE LSP.
Specification of solutions is out of scope for this document. This document describes a framework and Service Provider requirements
for operating MPLS-TE networks over GMPLS networks.
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 [RFC2119].
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................3 1. Introduction...................................................2
1.1 Terminology................................................3
2. Reference model................................................4 2. Reference model................................................4
3. Detailed Requirements..........................................5 3. Detailed Requirements..........................................4
3.1 End-to-End Signaling.......................................5 3.1 End-to-End Signaling.......................................5
3.2 Triggered Establishment of GMPLS LSPs......................5 3.2 Triggered Establishment of GMPLS LSPs......................5
3.3 Diverse Paths for End-to-End MPLS-TE LSPs..................5 3.3 Diverse Paths for End-to-End MPLS-TE LSPs..................5
3.4 Advertisement of MPLS-TE Information via the GMPLS Network.5 3.4 Advertisement of MPLS-TE Information via the GMPLS Network.5
3.5 Selective Advertisement of MPLS-TE Information via a Border 3.5 Selective Advertisement of MPLS-TE Information via a Border
Node...........................................................6 Node...........................................................5
3.6 Interworking of MPLS-TE and GMPLS protection...............6 3.6 Interworking of MPLS-TE and GMPLS Protection...............6
3.7 Independent Failure Recovery and Reoptimization............6 3.7 Independent Failure Recovery and Reoptimization............6
3.8 Complexity and Risks.......................................6 3.8 Complexity and Risks.......................................6
3.9 Scalability consideration..................................6 3.9 Scalability Considerations.................................6
3.10 Performance Consideration.................................7 3.10 Performance Considerations................................7
3.11 Management Considerations.................................7 3.11 Management Considerations.................................7
4. Security Considerations........................................7 4. Security Considerations........................................7
5. Recommended Solution Architecture..............................7 5. Recommended Solution Architecture..............................8
5.1 Use of Contiguous, Hierarchical, and Stitched LSPs.........8 5.1 Use of Contiguous, Hierarchical, and Stitched LSPs.........8
5.2 MPLS-TE Control Plane Connectivity.........................8 5.2 MPLS-TE Control Plane Connectivity.........................9
5.3 Fast Reroute Protection....................................8 5.3 Fast Reroute Protection....................................9
6. IANA Considerations............................................9 5.4 GMPLS LSP Advertisement....................................9
7. Normative References...........................................9 5.5 GMPLS Deployment Considerations...........................10
8. Informative References........................................10 6. IANA Considerations...........................................10
9. Acknowledgments...............................................10 7. Acknowledgments...............................................10
10.Author's Addresses............................................10 8. References....................................................10
8.1 Normative References......................................10
8.2 Informative References....................................11
9. Author's Address..............................................11
10. Contributors' Addresses......................................11
11. Intellectual Property Statement..............................12
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Multiprotocol Label Switching traffic engineering (MPLS-TE) networks Multiprotocol Label Switching traffic engineering (MPLS-TE) networks
are often deployed over transport networks such that the transport are often deployed over transport networks such that the transport
networks provide connectivity between the Label Switching Routers networks provide connectivity between the Label Switching Routers
(LSRs) in the MPLS-TE network. Increasingly, these transport networks (LSRs) in the MPLS-TE network. Increasingly, these transport networks
are operated using a Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching are operated using a Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) control plane and label Switched Paths (LSPs) in the GMPLS (GMPLS) control plane, and label Switched Paths (LSPs) in the GMPLS
network provide connectivity in the MPLS-TE network. network provide connectivity as virtual data links advertised as TE
links in the MPLS-TE network.
Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) protocols were GMPLS protocols were developed as extensions to MPLS-TE protocols.
developed as extensions to Multiprotocol Label Switching traffic MPLS-TE is limited to the control of packet switching networks, but
engineering (MPLS-TE) protocols. MPLS-TE is limited to the control of GMPLS can also control technologies at layers one and two.
packet switching networks, but GMPLS can also control sub-packet
technologies at layers one and two.
The GMPLS network may be managed by an operator as a separate network The GMPLS network may be managed by an operator as a separate network
(as it was when it was under management plane control before the use (as it may have been when it was under management plane control
of GMPLS as a control plane), but optimizations of management and before the use of GMPLS as a control plane), but optimizations of
operation may be achieved by coordinating the use of the MPLS-TE and management and operation may be achieved by coordinating the use of
GMPLS networks and operating the two networks with a close the MPLS-TE and GMPLS networks and operating the two networks with a
client/server relationship. close client/server relationship.
GMPLS LSP setup may triggered by the signaling of MPLS-TE LSPs in the GMPLS LSP setup may triggered by the signaling of MPLS-TE LSPs in the
MPLS-TE network so that the GMPLS network is reactive to the needs of MPLS-TE network so that the GMPLS network is reactive to the needs of
the MPLS-TE network. The triggering process can be under the control the MPLS-TE network. The triggering process can be under the control
of operator policies without needing direct intervention by an of operator policies without needing direct intervention by an
operator. operator.
The client/server configuration just described can also apply in The client/server configuration just described can also apply in
migration scenarios for MPLS-TE packet switching networks that are migration scenarios for MPLS-TE packet switching networks that are
being migrated to be under GMPLS control. [MIGRATE] describes a being migrated to be under GMPLS control. [MIGRATE] describes a
skipping to change at page 4, line 12 skipping to change at page 3, line 45
[MLN], it must be noted that those networks operate GMPLS protocols [MLN], it must be noted that those networks operate GMPLS protocols
in both the client and server networks which facilitates smoother in both the client and server networks which facilitates smoother
interworking. Where the client network uses MPLS-TE protocols over interworking. Where the client network uses MPLS-TE protocols over
the GMPLS server network there is a need to study the interworking of the GMPLS server network there is a need to study the interworking of
the two protocol sets. the two protocol sets.
This document examines the protocol requirements for protocol This document examines the protocol requirements for protocol
interworking to operate an MPLS-TE network as a client network over a interworking to operate an MPLS-TE network as a client network over a
GMPLS server network, and provides a framework for such operations. GMPLS server network, and provides a framework for such operations.
1.1 Terminology
Although this Informational document is not a protocol specification,
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 [RFC2119] for clarity
of exposure of the requirements.
2. Reference model 2. Reference model
The reference model used in this document is shown in Figure 1. It The reference model used in this document is shown in Figure 1. It
can easily be seen that the interworking between MPLS-TE and GMPLS can easily be seen that the interworking between MPLS-TE and GMPLS
protocols must occur on a node and not on a link. Nodes on the protocols must occur on a node and not on a link. Nodes on the
interface between the MPLS-TE and GMPLS networks must be responsible interface between the MPLS-TE and GMPLS networks must be responsible
for handling both protocol sets and for providing any protocol for handling both protocol sets and for providing any protocol
interworking that is required. We call these nodes Border Routers. interworking that is required. We call these nodes Border Routers.
-------------- ------------------------- -------------- -------------- ------------------------- --------------
skipping to change at page 4, line 48 skipping to change at page 4, line 41
|<--------------------------------------------->| |<--------------------------------------------->|
End-to-End MPLS-TE LSP End-to-End MPLS-TE LSP
Figure 1. Reference model of MPLS-TE/GMPLS interworking Figure 1. Reference model of MPLS-TE/GMPLS interworking
MPLS-TE network connectivity is provided through a GMPLS LSP which is MPLS-TE network connectivity is provided through a GMPLS LSP which is
created between Border Routers. End-to-end connectivity between MPLS created between Border Routers. End-to-end connectivity between MPLS
LSRs in the client MPLS-TE networks is provided by an MPLS-TE LSP LSRs in the client MPLS-TE networks is provided by an MPLS-TE LSP
that is carried across the MPLS-TE network by the GMPLS LSP using that is carried across the MPLS-TE network by the GMPLS LSP using
hierarchical LSP techniques [RFC4206], LSP stitching segments hierarchical LSP techniques [RFC4206], LSP stitching segments
[STITCH] or a contiguous LSP. LSP stitching segments and contiguous [STITCH], or a contiguous LSP. LSP stitching segments and contiguous
LSPs are only available where the GMPLS network is a packet switching LSPs are only available where the GMPLS network is a packet switching
network. network.
3. Detailed Requirements 3. Detailed Requirements
This section describes detailed requirements for MPLS-TE/GMPLS This section describes detailed requirements for MPLS-TE/GMPLS
interworking in support of the reference model shown in figure 1. interworking in support of the reference model shown in Figure 1.
3.1 End-to-End Signaling 3.1 End-to-End Signaling
The solution MUST be able to preserve MPLS signaling information The solution MUST be able to preserve MPLS signaling information
signaled within the MPLS-TE client network at the start of the MPLS- signaled within the MPLS-TE client network at the start of the MPLS-
TE LSP, and deliver it on the other side of the GMPLS server network TE LSP, and deliver it on the other side of the GMPLS server network
for use within the MPLS-TE client network at the end of the MPLS-TE for use within the MPLS-TE client network at the end of the MPLS-TE
LSP. This may require protocol mapping (and re-mapping), protocol LSP. This may require protocol mapping (and re-mapping), protocol
tunneling, or the use of remote protocol adjacencies. tunneling, or the use of remote protocol adjacencies.
3.2 Triggered Establishment of GMPLS LSPs 3.2 Triggered Establishment of GMPLS LSPs
The solution MUST provide the ability to establish end-to-end MPLS- The solution MUST provide the ability to establish end-to-end MPLS-
TE LSPs over a GMPLS server network. It SHOULD be possible for GMPLS TE LSPs over a GMPLS server network. It SHOULD be possible for GMPLS
LSPs across the core network to be set up between Border Routers LSPs across the core network to be set up between Border Routers
triggered by the signaling of MPLS-TE LSPs in the client network. triggered by the signaling of MPLS-TE LSPs in the client network, and
GMPLS LSPs MAY also be pre-established as the result of management in this case, policy controls MUST be made available at the border
plane control. routers so that the operator of the GMPLS network can manage how core
network resources are utilized. GMPLS LSPs MAY also be pre-
established as the result of management plane control.
3.3 Diverse Paths for End-to-End MPLS-TE LSPs 3.3 Diverse Paths for End-to-End MPLS-TE LSPs
The solution SHOULD provide the ability to establish end-to-end The solution SHOULD provide the ability to establish end-to-end MPLS-
MPLS-TE LSPs having diverse paths for protection of the LSP traffic. TE LSPs having diverse paths for protection of the LSP traffic. This
This means that MPLS-TE LSPs SHOULD be kept diverse both within the means that MPLS-TE LSPs SHOULD be kept diverse both within the client
client MPLS-TE network and as they cross the server GMPLS network. MPLS-TE network and as they cross the server GMPLS network. This
This means that there SHOULD be a mechanism to request the provision means that there SHOULD be a mechanism to request the provision of
of diverse GMPLS LSPs between a pair of Border Routers to provide diverse GMPLS LSPs between a pair of Border Routers to provide
protection of the GMPLS span, but also that there SHOULD be a way to protection of the GMPLS span, but also that there SHOULD be a way to
keep GMPLS LSPs between different Border Routers disjoint. keep GMPLS LSPs between different Border Routers disjoint.
3.4 Advertisement of MPLS-TE Information via the GMPLS Network 3.4 Advertisement of MPLS-TE Information via the GMPLS Network
The solution SHOULD provide the ability to advertise of TE The solution SHOULD provide the ability to exchange advertisements of
information from MPLS-TE client networks across the GMPLS server TE information between MPLS-TE client networks across the GMPLS
network. server network.
The advertisement of TE information from within an MPLS-TE client The advertisement of TE information from within an MPLS-TE client
network to all LSRs in the client network enables a head end LSR to network to all LSRs in the client network enables a head end LSR to
compute an optimal path for an LSP to a tail end LSR that is reached compute an optimal path for an LSP to a tail end LSR that is reached
over the GMPLS server network. over the GMPLS server network.
Where there is more than one client MPLS-TE network, the TE Where there is more than one client MPLS-TE network, the TE
information from separate MPLS-TE networks MUST be kept private, information from separate MPLS-TE networks MUST be kept private,
confidential and secure. confidential and secure.
3.5 Selective Advertisement of MPLS-TE Information via a Border Node 3.5 Selective Advertisement of MPLS-TE Information via a Border Node
The solution SHOULD provide the ability to distribute TE reachability The solution SHOULD provide the ability to distribute TE reachability
information from the GMPLS server network to MPLS-TE networks information from the GMPLS server network to MPLS-TE networks
selectively. This information is useful for the LSRs in the MPLS-TE selectively. This information is useful for the LSRs in the MPLS-TE
networks to compute paths that cross the GMPLS server network and to networks to compute paths that cross the GMPLS server network and to
select the correct Border Routers to provide connectivity. select the correct Border Routers to provide connectivity.
The solution MUST NOT distribute TE information from within a non-PSC The solution MUST NOT distribute TE information from within a non-PSC
GMPLS server network to any client MPLS-TE network as that GMPLS server network to any client MPLS-TE network as that
information may cause confusion and selection of inappropriate paths. information may cause confusion and selection of inappropriate paths.
skipping to change at page 6, line 17 skipping to change at page 6, line 14
The solution SHOULD provide the ability to distribute TE reachability The solution SHOULD provide the ability to distribute TE reachability
information from the GMPLS server network to MPLS-TE networks information from the GMPLS server network to MPLS-TE networks
selectively. This information is useful for the LSRs in the MPLS-TE selectively. This information is useful for the LSRs in the MPLS-TE
networks to compute paths that cross the GMPLS server network and to networks to compute paths that cross the GMPLS server network and to
select the correct Border Routers to provide connectivity. select the correct Border Routers to provide connectivity.
The solution MUST NOT distribute TE information from within a non-PSC The solution MUST NOT distribute TE information from within a non-PSC
GMPLS server network to any client MPLS-TE network as that GMPLS server network to any client MPLS-TE network as that
information may cause confusion and selection of inappropriate paths. information may cause confusion and selection of inappropriate paths.
3.6 Interworking of MPLS-TE and GMPLS protection 3.6 Interworking of MPLS-TE and GMPLS Protection
If an MPLS-TE LSPs is protected using MPLS Fast Reroute (FRR) If an MPLS-TE LSP is protected using MPLS Fast Reroute (FRR)
[RFC4090], then similar PROTECTION MUST be provided over the GMPLS [RFC4090], then similar protection MUST be provided over the GMPLS
island. Operator and policy controls SHOULD be made available at the island. Operator and policy controls SHOULD be made available at the
Border Router to determine how suitable protection is provided in the Border Router to determine how suitable protection is provided in the
GMPLS island. GMPLS island.
3.7 Independent Failure Recovery and Reoptimization 3.7 Independent Failure Recovery and Reoptimization
The solution SHOULD provide failure recovery and reoptimization in The solution SHOULD provide failure recovery and reoptimization in
the GMPLS server network without impacting MPLS-TE client network and the GMPLS server network without impacting the MPLS-TE client network
vice versa. That is, it SHOULD be possible to recover from a fault and vice versa. That is, it SHOULD be possible to recover from a
within the GMPLS island or to reoptimize the path across the GMPLS fault within the GMPLS island or to reoptimize the path across the
island without requiring signaling activity within the MPLS-TE client GMPLS island without requiring signaling activity within the MPLS-TE
network. Similarly, it SHOULD be possible to perform recovery or client network. Similarly, it SHOULD be possible to perform recovery
reoptimization within the MPLS-TE client network without requiring or reoptimization within the MPLS-TE client network without requiring
signaling activity within the GMPLS server networks. signaling activity within the GMPLS server networks.
In case that failure in the GMPLS server network can not be repaired If a failure in the GMPLS server network can not be repaired
transparently, some kind of notification of the failure SHOULD be transparently, some kind of notification of the failure SHOULD be
transmitted to MPLS-TE network. transmitted to MPLS-TE network.
3.8 Complexity and Risks 3.8 Complexity and Risks
The solution SHOULD NOT introduce unnecessary complexity to the The solution SHOULD NOT introduce unnecessary complexity to the
current operating network to such a degree that it would affect the current operating network to such a degree that it would affect the
stability and diminish the benefits of deploying such a solution in stability and diminish the benefits of deploying such a solution in
service provider networks. service provider networks.
3.9 Scalability consideration 3.9 Scalability Considerations
The solution MUST scale well with consideration to at least the The solution MUST scale well with consideration to at least the
following considerations. following metrics.
- The number of GMPLS-capable nodes (i.e., the size of the GMPLS - The number of GMPLS-capable nodes (i.e., the size of the GMPLS
server network). server network).
- The number of MPLS-TE-capable nodes (i.e., the size of the MPLS-TE - The number of MPLS-TE-capable nodes (i.e., the size of the MPLS-TE
client network). client network).
- The number of MPLS-TE client networks. - The number of MPLS-TE client networks.
- The number of GMPLS LSPs. - The number of GMPLS LSPs.
- The number of MPLS-TE LSPs. - The number of MPLS-TE LSPs.
3.10 Performance Consideration 3.10 Performance Considerations
The solution SHOULD be evaluated with regard to the following The solution SHOULD be evaluated with regard to the following
criteria. criteria.
- Failure and restoration time. - Failure and restoration time.
- Impact and scalability of the control plane due to added - Impact and scalability of the control plane due to added
overheads. overheads.
- Impact and scalability of the data/forwarding plane due to added - Impact and scalability of the data/forwarding plane due to added
overheads. overheads.
3.11 Management Considerations 3.11 Management Considerations
Manageability of deployment of an MPLS-TE client network over GMPLS Manageability of the deployment of an MPLS-TE client network over
server network MUST addresses the following considerations. GMPLS server network MUST addresses the following considerations.
- Need for coordination of MIB modules used for control plane - Need for coordination of MIB modules used for control plane
management and monitoring in the client and server networks. management and monitoring in the client and server networks.
- Need for diagnostic tools that can discover and isolate faults - Need for diagnostic tools that can discover and isolate faults
across the border between the MPLS-TE client and GMPLS server across the border between the MPLS-TE client and GMPLS server
networks. networks.
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
We will write security considerations in next version. Security issues for this model relate to control and data planes, and
to authentication at border routers. Actually, border routers are
administrative boundaries. Therefore, if the MPLS-TE client network
and GMPLS server network are in completely different administrations,
some functions for limiting control and data packet exchanges at the
domain boundary are required.
Authentication mechanisms to separate operators in the MPLS-TE client
network from operators in the GMPLS server network are also required
in the border routers. In this case, operators in the MPLS-TE client
network MUST NOT be allowed to configure the GMPLS server network,
and vice versa. But, in some cases, both types of operator MAY check
the state of both networks.
On the other hand, if the MPLS-TE client and GMPLS server network are
part of the same administration, functions for limiting control and
data packet exchange are not required. Also, authentication
mechanisms to separate operators in the MPLS-TE client network from
operators in the GMPLS server network in border routers are not
required. But, in some cases, loose restriction at command and
configuration levels MAY exist between operators in the MPLS-TE
client network and operators in the GMPLS server network.
5. Recommended Solution Architecture 5. Recommended Solution Architecture
The recommended solution architecture to meet the requirements set The recommended solution architecture to meet the requirements set
out in the previous sections is known as the Border Peer Model. This out in Section 3 is known as the Border Peer Model. This architecture
architecture is a variant of the Augmented Model described in is a variant of the Augmented Model described in [RFC3945]. The
[RFC3945]. The remainder of this document presents an overview of remainder of this document presents an overview of this architecture.
this architecture. Details of protocol solutions are described in
[BORDER-PEER].
In the Augmented Model, routing information from the lower layer In the Augmented Model, routing information from the lower layer
(server) network is filtered at the interface to the higher layer (server) network is filtered at the interface to the higher layer
(client) network and is distributed within the higher layer network. (client) network and a subset of the information is distributed
within the higher layer network.
In the Border Peer Model, the interface between the client and server In the Border Peer Model, the interface between the client and server
networks is the Border Router. This router has visibility of the networks is the Border Router. This router has visibility of the
routing information in the server network yet also participates as a routing information in the server network yet also participates as a
peer in the client network. However, the Border Router does not peer in the client network. Thus the Border Router has full
distribute server routing information into the client network. visibility into both networks. However, the Border Router does not
distribute server routing information into the client network, nor
does it distribute client routing information into the server network.
The Border Peer Model may also be contrasted with the Overlay Model The Border Peer Model may also be contrasted with the Overlay Model
[RFC3945]. In this model there is a protocol request/response [RFC3945]. In this model there is a protocol request/response
interface (the user network interface - UNI) between the client and interface (the user network interface - UNI) between the client and
server networks. [RFC4208] shows how this interface may be supported server networks. [RFC4208] shows how this interface may be supported
by GMPLS protocols operated between client edge and server edge by GMPLS protocols operated between client edge and server edge
routers while retaining the routing information within the server routers while retaining the routing information within the server
network. The Border Peer Model can be viewed as placing the UNI network. That is, in the Overlay Model there is no exchange of
within the Border Router thus giving the Border Router peer routing or reachability information between client and server
networks, and no network element has visibility into both client and
server networks. The Border Peer Model can be viewed as placing the
UNI within the Border Router thus giving the Border Router peer
capabilities in both the client and server network. capabilities in both the client and server network.
5.1 Use of Contiguous, Hierarchical, and Stitched LSPs 5.1 Use of Contiguous, Hierarchical, and Stitched LSPs
All three LSP types MAY be supported in the Border Peer Model, but All three LSP types MAY be supported in the Border Peer Model, but
contiguous LSPs are the hardest to support because they require contiguous LSPs are the hardest to support because they require
protocol mapping between the MPLS-TE client network and the GMPLS protocol mapping between the MPLS-TE client network and the GMPLS
server network. Such protocol mapping can currently be achieved since server network. Such protocol mapping can be achieved currently since
MPLS-TE signaling protocols are a subset of GMPLS, but this mechanism MPLS-TE signaling protocols are a subset of GMPLS, but this mechanism
is not future-proofed. is not future-proofed.
Contiguous and stitched LSPs can only be supported where the GMPLS Contiguous and stitched LSPs can only be supported where the GMPLS
server network has the same switching type (that is, packet server network has the same switching type (that is, packet
switching) as the MPLS-TE network. Requirements for independent switching) as the MPLS-TE network. Requirements for independent
failure recovery within the GMPLS island require the use of loose failure recovery within the GMPLS island require the use of loose
path reoptimization techniques [LOOSE-REOPT] and end-to-end make- path reoptimization techniques [RFC4736] and end-to-end make-before-
before-break [RFC3209] which will not provide rapid recovery. break [RFC3209] which will not provide rapid recovery.
For these reasons, the use of hierarchical LSPs across the server For these reasons, the use of hierarchical LSPs across the server
network is RECOMMENDED for the Border Peer Model, but see the network is RECOMMENDED for the Border Peer Model, but see the
discussion of Fast Reroute protection in section 5.3. discussion of Fast Reroute protection in Section 5.3.
5.2 MPLS-TE Control Plane Connectivity 5.2 MPLS-TE Control Plane Connectivity
Control plane connectivity between MPLS-TE LSRs connected by a GMPLS Control plane connectivity between MPLS-TE LSRs connected by a GMPLS
island in the Border Peer Model MAY be provided by the control island in the Border Peer Model MAY be provided by the control
channels of the GMPLS network. If this is done, a tunneling mechanism channels of the GMPLS network. If this is done, a tunneling mechanism
(such as GRE [RFC2784]) SHOULD be used to ensure that MPLS-TE (such as GRE [RFC2784]) SHOULD be used to ensure that MPLS-TE
information is not consumed by the GMPLS LSRs. But care is required information is not consumed by the GMPLS LSRs. But care is required
to avoid swamping the control plane of the GMPLS network with MPLS-TE to avoid swamping the control plane of the GMPLS network with MPLS-TE
control plane (particularly routing) messages. control plane (particularly routing) messages.
skipping to change at page 9, line 25 skipping to change at page 9, line 49
Note further that Fast Reroute is not available in non-packet Note further that Fast Reroute is not available in non-packet
technologies. However, other protection techniques are supported by technologies. However, other protection techniques are supported by
GMPLS for non-packet networks and are likely to provide similar GMPLS for non-packet networks and are likely to provide similar
levels of protection. levels of protection.
The limitations of FRR need careful consideration by the operator and The limitations of FRR need careful consideration by the operator and
may lead to the decision to provide end-to-end protection for the may lead to the decision to provide end-to-end protection for the
MPLS-TE LSP. MPLS-TE LSP.
5.4 GMPLS LSP Advertisement
In the Border Peer Model, the LSPs established by the Border Routers
in the GMPLS server network SHOULD be advertised in the MPLS-TE
client network as real or virtual links. In case real links are
advertised into the MPLS-TE client network, the Border Routers in the
MPLS-TE client network MAY establish IGP neighbors. The Border
Routers MAY automatically advertise the GMPLS LSPs when establishing
them.
5.5 GMPLS Deployment Considerations
The Border Peer Model does not require the existing MPLS-TE client
network to be GMPLS aware and does not affect on the operation and
management of the existing MPLS-TE client network. Only border
routers need to be upgraded with the GMPLS functionality. In this
fashion, the Border Peer Model renders itself for incremental
deployment of the GMPLS server network, without requiring
reconfiguration of existing areas/ASes, changing operation of IGP and
BGP or software upgrade of the existing MPLS-TE client network.
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
This requirement document makes no requests for IANA action. This requirements document makes no requests for IANA action.
7. Normative References [RFC Editor: please remove this section before publication.]
7. Acknowledgments
The author would like to express the thanks to Raymond Zhang, Adrian
Farrel, and Deborah Brungard for their helpful and useful comments
and feedback.
8. References
8.1 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.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V. [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC3945] Mannie, E., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching [RFC3945] Mannie, E., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Architecture", RFC3945, October 2004. (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC3945, October 2004.
skipping to change at page 10, line 9 skipping to change at page 11, line 14
[RFC4208] Swallow, G., et al., "Generalized Multiprotocol Label [RFC4208] Swallow, G., et al., "Generalized Multiprotocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) User-Network Interface (UNI): Resource Switching (GMPLS) User-Network Interface (UNI): Resource
ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Support ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Support
for the Overlay Model", RFC 4208, October 2005. for the Overlay Model", RFC 4208, October 2005.
[STITCH] Ayyangar, A., Vasseur, JP. "Label Switched Path Stitching [STITCH] Ayyangar, A., Vasseur, JP. "Label Switched Path Stitching
with Generalized MPLS Traffic Engineering", draft-ietf- with Generalized MPLS Traffic Engineering", draft-ietf-
ccamp-lsp-stitching, work in progress. ccamp-lsp-stitching, work in progress.
8. Informative References 8.2 Informative References
[RFC2784] Farinacci, D., et al., "Generic Routing Encapsulation [RFC2784] Farinacci, D., et al., "Generic Routing Encapsulation
(GRE)", RFC 2784, March 2000. (GRE)", RFC 2784, March 2000.
[BORDER-PEER] Kumaki, K. et al. "Operational, Deployment and [RFC4736] Vasseur, JP., Ikejiri, Y., and Zhang, R., "Reoptimization
Interworking Considerations for GMPLS", draft-kumaki- of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering
ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interworking, work in progress. (TE) loosely routed Label Switch Path (LSP)", RFC4736,
November 2006.
[LOOSE-REOPT] Vasseur, JP., Ikejiri, Y., and Zhang, R.,
"Reoptimization of Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) loosely routed Label
Switch Path (LSP)", draft-ietf-ccamp-loose-path-reopt,
work in progress.
[MIGRATE] Shiomoto, K., et al., "Framework for MPLS-TE to GMPLS [MIGRATE] Shiomoto, K., et al., "Framework for MPLS-TE to GMPLS
migration", draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-fmwk, migration", draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-fmwk,
work in progress. work in progress.
[MLN] Shiomoto, K., Papadimitriou, D., Le Roux, J.L., Vigoureux, M., [MLN] Shiomoto, K., Papadimitriou, D., Le Roux, J.L., Vigoureux, M.,
Brungard, D., "Requirements for GMPLS-based multi-region and Brungard, D., "Requirements for GMPLS-based multi-region and
multi-layer networks (MRN/MLN)", draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln- multi-layer networks (MRN/MLN)", draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-
reqs, work in progress. reqs, work in progress.
9. Acknowledgments 9. Author's Address
The author would like to express the thanks to Raymond Zhang, Adrian
Farrel, and Deborah Brungard for their helpful and useful comments
and feedback.
10.Author's Addresses
Kenji Kumaki (Editor) Kenji Kumaki
KDDI Corporation KDDI Corporation
Garden Air Tower Garden Air Tower
Iidabashi, Chiyoda-ku, Iidabashi, Chiyoda-ku,
Tokyo 102-8460, JAPAN Tokyo 102-8460, JAPAN
Email: ke-kumaki@kddi.com Email: ke-kumaki@kddi.com
10. Contributors' Addresses
Tomohiro Otani Tomohiro Otani
KDDI R&D Laboratories, Inc. KDDI R&D Laboratories, Inc.
2-1-15 Ohara Kamifukuoka Phone: +81-49-278-7357 2-1-15 Ohara Kamifukuoka Phone: +81-49-278-7357
Saitama, 356-8502. Japan Email: otani@kddilabs.jp Saitama, 356-8502. Japan Email: otani@kddilabs.jp
Shuichi Okamoto Shuichi Okamoto
NICT JGN II Tsukuba Reserach Center NICT JGN II Tsukuba Reserach Center
1-8-1, Otemachi Chiyoda-ku, Phone : +81-3-5200-2117 1-8-1, Otemachi Chiyoda-ku, Phone : +81-3-5200-2117
Tokyo, 100-0004, Japan E-mail :okamoto-s@nict.go.jp Tokyo, 100-0004, Japan E-mail :okamoto-s@nict.go.jp
Kazuhiro Fujihara Kazuhiro Fujihara
NTT Communications Corporation NTT Communications Corporation
Tokyo Opera City Tower 3-20-2 Nishi Shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku Tokyo Opera City Tower 3-20-2 Nishi Shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku
Tokyo 163-1421, Japan Tokyo 163-1421, Japan
EMail: kazuhiro.fujihara@ntt.com EMail: kazuhiro.fujihara@ntt.com
Yuichi Ikejiri Yuichi Ikejiri
NTT Communications Corporation NTT Communications Corporation
Tokyo Opera City Tower 3-20-2 Nishi Shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku Tokyo Opera City Tower 3-20-2 Nishi Shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku
Tokyo 163-1421, Japan Tokyo 163-1421, Japan
skipping to change at page 11, line 20 skipping to change at page 12, line 16
Tokyo Opera City Tower 3-20-2 Nishi Shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku Tokyo Opera City Tower 3-20-2 Nishi Shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku
Tokyo 163-1421, Japan Tokyo 163-1421, Japan
EMail: kazuhiro.fujihara@ntt.com EMail: kazuhiro.fujihara@ntt.com
Yuichi Ikejiri Yuichi Ikejiri
NTT Communications Corporation NTT Communications Corporation
Tokyo Opera City Tower 3-20-2 Nishi Shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku Tokyo Opera City Tower 3-20-2 Nishi Shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku
Tokyo 163-1421, Japan Tokyo 163-1421, Japan
EMail: y.ikejiri@ntt.com EMail: y.ikejiri@ntt.com
Full Copyright Statement 11. Intellectual Property Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
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.
skipping to change at page 12, line 11 skipping to change at page 12, line 40
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr. http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org. ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement Disclaimer of Validity
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the This document and the information contained herein are provided on
Internet Society. an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE
IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL
WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY
WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY
RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
 End of changes. 54 change blocks. 
145 lines changed or deleted 173 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.33. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/