|
|
|
|
|
|
IETF RFC 4202
Routing Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Last modified on Monday, October 10th, 2005
 Permanent link to RFC 4202
 Search GitHub Wiki for RFC 4202
 Show other RFCs mentioning RFC 4202
Network Working Group K. Kompella, Ed.
Request for Comments: 4202 Y. Rekhter, Ed.
Category: Standards Track Juniper Networks
October 2005
Routing Extensions in Support of
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
 Status of This Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright © The Internet Society (2005).
Abstract
This document specifies routing extensions in support of carrying
link state information for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS). This document enhances the routing extensions required to
support MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE).
Kompella & Rekhter Standards Track PAGE 1 
RFC 4202 Routing Extensions for GMPLS October 2005
Table of Contents
1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements for Layer-Specific TE Attributes . . . . . 4
1.2. Excluding Data Traffic from Control Channels. . . . . . 6
2. GMPLS Routing Enhancements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1. Support for Unnumbered Links. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2. Link Protection Type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3. Shared Risk Link Group Information. . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.4. Interface Switching Capability Descriptor . . . . . . . 9
2.4.1. Layer-2 Switch Capable. . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.4.2. Packet-Switch Capable . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.4.3. Time-Division Multiplex Capable . . . . . . . . 12
2.4.4. Lambda-Switch Capable . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.4.5. Fiber-Switch Capable. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.4.6. Multiple Switching Capabilities per Interface . 13
2.4.7. Interface Switching Capabilities and Labels . . 14
2.4.8. Other Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.5. Bandwidth Encoding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3. Examples of Interface Switching Capability Descriptor . . . . 15
3.1. STM-16 POS Interface on a LSR . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.2. GigE Packet Interface on a LSR. . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.3. STM-64 SDH Interface on a Digital Cross Connect with
Standard SDH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.4. STM-64 SDH Interface on a Digital Cross Connect with
Two Types of SDH Multiplexing Hierarchy Supported . . . 16
3.5. Interface on an Opaque OXC (SDH Framed) with Support
for One Lambda per Port/Interface . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.6. Interface on a Transparent OXC (PXC) with External
DWDM that understands SDH framing . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.7. Interface on a Transparent OXC (PXC) with External
DWDM That Is Transparent to Bit-Rate and Framing. . . . 17
3.8. Interface on a PXC with No External DWDM. . . . . . . . 18
3.9. Interface on a OXC with Internal DWDM That Understands
SDH Framing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.10. Interface on a OXC with Internal DWDM That Is
Transparent to Bit-Rate and Framing . . . . . . . . . . 19
4. Example of Interfaces That Support Multiple Switching
Capabilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.1. Interface on a PXC+TDM Device with External DWDM. . . . 20
4.2. Interface on an Opaque OXC+TDM Device with External
DWDM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.3. Interface on a PXC+LSR Device with External DWDM. . . . 21
4.4. Interface on a TDM+LSR Device . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5. Acknowledgements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Kompella & Rekhter Standards Track PAGE 2
RFC 4202 Routing Extensions for GMPLS October 2005
7. References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7.1. Normative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7.2. Informative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
8. Contributors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1. Introduction
This document specifies routing extensions in support of carrying
link state information for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS). This document enhances the routing extensions [ISIS-TE],
[OSPF-TE] required to support MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE).
Traditionally, a TE link is advertised as an adjunct to a "regular"
link, i.e., a routing adjacency is brought up on the link, and when
the link is up, both the properties of the link are used for Shortest
Path First (SPF) computations (basically, the SPF metric) and the TE
properties of the link are then advertised.
GMPLS challenges this notion in three ways. First, links that are
not capable of sending and receiving on a packet-by-packet basis may
yet have TE properties; however, a routing adjacency cannot be
brought up on such links. Second, a Label Switched Path can be
advertised as a point-to-point TE link (see [LSP-HIER]); thus, an
advertised TE link may be between a pair of nodes that don't have a
routing adjacency with each other. Finally, a number of links may be
advertised as a single TE link (perhaps for improved scalability), so
again, there is no longer a one-to-one association of a regular
routing adjacency and a TE link.
Thus we have a more general notion of a TE link. A TE link is a
"logical" link that has TE properties. The link is logical in a
sense that it represents a way to group/map the information about
certain physical resources (and their properties) into the
information that is used by Constrained SPF for the purpose of path
computation, and by GMPLS signaling. This grouping/mapping must be
done consistently at both ends of the link. LMP [LMP] could be used
to check/verify this consistency.
Depending on the nature of resources that form a particular TE link,
for the purpose of GMPLS signaling, in some cases the combination of
<TE link identifier, label> is sufficient to unambiguously identify
the appropriate resource used by an LSP. In other cases, the
combination of <TE link identifier, label> is not sufficient; such
cases are handled by using the link bundling construct [LINK-BUNDLE]
that allows to identify the resource by <TE link identifier,
Component link identifier, label>.
Kompella & Rekhter Standards Track PAGE 3
RFC 4202 Routing Extensions for GMPLS October 2005
Some of the properties of a TE link may be configured on the
advertising Label Switching Router (LSR), others which may be
obtained from other LSRs by means of some protocol, and yet others
which may be deduced from the component(s) of the TE link.
A TE link between a pair of LSRs doesn't imply the existence of a
routing adjacency (e.g., an IGP adjacency) between these LSRs. As we
mentioned above, in certain cases a TE link between a pair of LSRs
could be advertised even if there is no routing adjacency at all
between the LSRs (e.g., when the TE link is a Forwarding Adjacency
(see [LSP-HIER])).
A TE link must have some means by which the advertising LSR can know
of its liveness (this means may be routing hellos, but is not limited
to routing hellos). When an LSR knows that a TE link is up, and can
determine the TE link's TE properties, the LSR may then advertise
that link to its (regular) neighbors.
In this document, we call the interfaces over which regular routing
adjacencies are established "control channels".
[ISIS-TE] and [OSPF-TE] define the canonical TE properties, and say
how to associate TE properties to regular (packet-switched) links.
This document extends the set of TE properties, and also says how to
associate TE properties with non-packet-switched links such as links
between Optical Cross-Connects (OXCs). [LSP-HIER] says how to
associate TE properties with links formed by Label Switched Paths.
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 BCP 14, RFC 2119
[RFC 2119].
1.1. Requirements for Layer-Specific TE Attributes
In generalizing TE links to include traditional transport facilities,
there are additional factors that influence what information is
needed about the TE link. These arise from existing transport layer
architecture (e.g., ITU-T Recommendations G.805 and G.806) and
associated layer services. Some of these factors are:
1. The need for LSPs at a specific adaptation, not just a particular
bandwidth. Clients of optical networks obtain connection services
for specific adaptations, for example, a VC-3 circuit. This not
only implies a particular bandwidth, but how the payload is
structured. Thus the VC-3 client would not be satisfied with any
LSP that offered other than 48.384 Mbit/s and with the expected
Kompella & Rekhter Standards Track PAGE 4
RFC 4202 Routing Extensions for GMPLS October 2005
structure. The corollary is that path computation should be able
to find a route that would give a connection at a specific
adaptation.
2. Distinguishing variable adaptation. A resource between two OXCs
(specifically a G.805 trail) can sometimes support different
adaptations at the same time. An example of this is described in
section 2.4.8. In this situation, the fact that two adaptations
are supported on the same trail is important because the two
layers are dependent, and it is important to be able to reflect
this layer relationship in routing, especially in view of the
relative lack of flexibility of transport layers compared to
packet layers.
3. Inheritable attributes. When a whole multiplexing hierarchy is
supported by a TE link, a lower layer attribute may be applicable
to the upper layers. Protection attributes are a good example of
this. If an OC-192 link is 1+1 protected (a duplicate OC-192
exists for protection), then an STS-3c within that OC-192 (a
higher layer) would inherit the same protection property.
4. Extensibility of layers. In addition to the existing defined
transport layers, new layers and adaptation relationships could
come into existence in the future.
5. Heterogeneous networks whose OXCs do not all support the same set
of layers. In a GMPLS network, not all transport layer network
elements are expected to support the same layers. For example,
there may be switches capable of only VC-11, VC-12, and VC-3, and
there may be others that can only support VC-3 and VC-4. Even
though a network element cannot support a specific layer, it
should be able to know if a network element elsewhere in the
network can support an adaptation that would enable that
unsupported layer to be used. For example, a VC-11 switch could
use a VC-3 capable switch if it knew that a VC-11 path could be
constructed over a VC-3 link connection.
From the factors presented above, development of layer specific GMPLS
routing documents should use the following principles for TE-link
attributes.
1. Separation of attributes. The attributes in a given layer are
separated from attributes in another layer.
2. Support of inter-layer attributes (e.g., adaptation
relationships). Between a client and server layer, a general
mechanism for describing the layer relationship exists. For
Kompella & Rekhter Standards Track PAGE 5
RFC 4202 Routing Extensions for GMPLS October 2005
example, "4 client links of type X can be supported by this server
layer link". Another example is being able to identify when two
layers share a common server layer.
3. Support for inheritable attributes. Attributes which can be
inherited should be identified.
4. Layer extensibility. Attributes should be represented in routing
such that future layers can be accommodated. This is much like
the notion of the generalized label.
5. Explicit attribute scope. For example, it should be clear whether
a given attribute applies to a set of links at the same layer.
The present document captures general attributes that apply to a
single layer network, but doesn't capture inter-layer relationships
of attributes. This work is left to a future document.
1.2. Excluding Data Traffic from Control Channels
The control channels between nodes in a GMPLS network, such as OXCs,
SDH cross-connects and/or routers, are generally meant for control
and administrative traffic. These control channels are advertised
into routing as normal links as mentioned in the previous section;
this allows the routing of (for example) RSVP messages and telnet
sessions. However, if routers on the edge of the optical domain
attempt to forward data traffic over these channels, the channel
capacity will quickly be exhausted.
In order to keep these control channels from being advertised into
the user data plane a variety of techniques can be used.
If one assumes that data traffic is sent to BGP destinations, and
control traffic to IGP destinations, then one can exclude data
traffic from the control plane by restricting BGP nexthop resolution.
(It is assumed that OXCs are not BGP speakers.) Suppose that a
router R is attempting to install a route to a BGP destination D. R
looks up the BGP nexthop for D in its IGP's routing table. Say R
finds that the path to the nexthop is over interface I. R then
checks if it has an entry in its Link State database associated with
the interface I. If it does, and the link is not packet-switch
capable (see [LSP-HIER]), R installs a discard route for destination
D. Otherwise, R installs (as usual) a route for destination D with
nexthop I. Note that R need only do this check if it has packet-
switch incapable links; if all of its links are packet-switch
capable, then clearly this check is redundant.
Kompella & Rekhter Standards Track PAGE 6
RFC 4202 Routing Extensions for GMPLS October 2005
In other instances it may be desirable to keep the whole address
space of a GMPLS routing plane disjoint from the endpoint addresses
in another portion of the GMPLS network. For example, the addresses
of a carrier network where the carrier uses GMPLS but does not wish
to expose the internals of the addressing or topology. In such a
network the control channels are never advertised into the end data
network. In this instance, independent mechanisms are used to
advertise the data addresses over the carrier network.
Other techniques for excluding data traffic from control channels may
also be needed.
2. GMPLS Routing Enhancements
In this section we define the enhancements to the TE properties of
GMPLS TE links. Encoding of this information in IS-IS is specified
in [GMPLS-ISIS]. Encoding of this information in OSPF is specified
in [GMPLS-OSPF].
2.1. Support for Unnumbered Links
An unnumbered link has to be a point-to-point link. An LSR at each
end of an unnumbered link assigns an identifier to that link. This
identifier is a non-zero 32-bit number that is unique within the
scope of the LSR that assigns it.
Consider an (unnumbered) link between LSRs A and B. LSR A chooses an
idenfitier for that link. So does LSR B. From A's perspective we
refer to the identifier that A assigned to the link as the "link
local identifier" (or just "local identifier"), and to the identifier
that B assigned to the link as the "link remote identifier" (or just
"remote identifier"). Likewise, from B's perspective the identifier
that B assigned to the link is the local identifier, and the
identifier that A assigned to the link is the remote identifier.
Support for unnumbered links in routing includes carrying information
about the identifiers of that link. Specifically, when an LSR
advertises an unnumbered TE link, the advertisement carries both the
local and the remote identifiers of the link. If the LSR doesn't
know the remote identifier of that link, the LSR should use a value
of 0 as the remote identifier.
2.2. Link Protection Type
The Link Protection Type represents the protection capability that
exists for a link. It is desirable to carry this information so that
it may be used by the path computation algorithm to set up LSPs with
appropriate protection characteristics. This information is
Kompella & Rekhter Standards Track PAGE 7
RFC 4202 Routing Extensions for GMPLS October 2005
organized in a hierarchy where typically the minimum acceptable
protection is specified at path instantiation and a path selection
technique is used to find a path that satisfies at least the minimum
acceptable protection. Protection schemes are presented in order
from lowest to highest protection.
This document defines the following protection capabilities:
Extra Traffic
If the link is of type Extra Traffic, it means that the link is
protecting another link or links. The LSPs on a link of this type
will be lost if any of the links it is protecting fail.
Unprotected
If the link is of type Unprotected, it means that there is no
other link protecting this link. The LSPs on a link of this type
will be lost if the link fails.
Shared
If the link is of type Shared, it means that there are one or more
disjoint links of type Extra Traffic that are protecting this
link. These Extra Traffic links are shared between one or more
links of type Shared.
Dedicated 1:1
If the link is of type Dedicated 1:1, it means that there is one
dedicated disjoint link of type Extra Traffic that is protecting
this link.
Dedicated 1+1
If the link is of type Dedicated 1+1, it means that a dedicated
disjoint link is protecting this link. However, the protecting
link is not advertised in the link state database and is therefore
not available for the routing of LSPs.
Enhanced
If the link is of type Enhanced, it means that a protection scheme
that is more reliable than Dedicated 1+1, e.g., 4 fiber
BLSR/MS-SPRING, is being used to protect this link.
The Link Protection Type is optional, and if a Link State
Advertisement doesn't carry this information, then the Link
Protection Type is unknown.
Kompella & Rekhter Standards Track PAGE 8
RFC 4202 Routing Extensions for GMPLS October 2005
2.3. Shared Risk Link Group Information
A set of links may constitute a 'shared risk link group' (SRLG) if
they share a resource whose failure may affect all links in the set.
For example, two fibers in the same conduit would be in the same
SRLG. A link may belong to multiple SRLGs. Thus the SRLG
Information describes a list of SRLGs that the link belongs to. An
SRLG is identified by a 32 bit number that is unique within an IGP
domain. The SRLG Information is an unordered list of SRLGs that the
link belongs to.
The SRLG of a LSP is the union of the SRLGs of the links in the LSP.
The SRLG of a bundled link is the union of the SRLGs of all the
component links.
If an LSR is required to have multiple diversely routed LSPs to
another LSR, the path computation should attempt to route the paths
so that they do not have any links in common, and such that the path
SRLGs are disjoint.
The SRLG Information may start with a configured value, in which case
it does not change over time, unless reconfigured.
The SRLG Information is optional and if a Link State Advertisement
doesn't carry the SRLG Information, then it means that SRLG of that
link is unknown.
2.4. Interface Switching Capability Descriptor
In the context of this document we say that a link is connected to a
node by an interface. In the context of GMPLS interfaces may have
different switching capabilities. For example an interface that
connects a given link to a node may not be able to switch individual
packets, but it may be able to switch channels within an SDH payload.
Interfaces at each end of a link need not have the same switching
capabilities. Interfaces on the same node need not have the same
switching capabilities.
The Interface Switching Capability Descriptor describes switching
capability of an interface. For bi-directional links, the switching
capabilities of an interface are defined to be the same in either
direction. I.e., for data entering the node through that interface
and for data leaving the node through that interface.
A Link State Advertisement of a link carries the Interface Switching
Capability Descriptor(s) only of the near end (the end incumbent on
the LSR originating the advertisement).
Kompella & Rekhter Standards Track PAGE 9
RFC 4202 Routing Extensions for GMPLS October 2005
An LSR performing path computation uses the Link State Database to
determine whether a link is unidirectional or bidirectional.
For a bidirectional link the LSR uses its Link State Database to
determine the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor(s) of the
far-end of the link, as bidirectional links with different Interface
Switching Capabilities at its two ends are allowed.
For a unidirectional link it is assumed that the Interface Switching
Capability Descriptor at the far-end of the link is the same as at
the near-end. Thus, an unidirectional link is required to have the
same interface switching capabilities at both ends. This seems a
reasonable assumption given that unidirectional links arise only with
packet forwarding adjacencies and for these both ends belong to the
same level of the PSC hierarchy.
This document defines the following Interface Switching Capabilities:
Packet-Switch Capable-1 (PSC-1)
Packet-Switch Capable-2 (PSC-2)
Packet-Switch Capable-3 (PSC-3)
Packet-Switch Capable-4 (PSC-4)
Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC)
Time-Division-Multiplex Capable (TDM)
Lambda-Switch Capable (LSC)
Fiber-Switch Capable (FSC)
If there is no Interface Switching Capability Descriptor for an
interface, the interface is assumed to be packet-switch capable
(PSC-1).
Interface Switching Capability Descriptors present a new constraint
for LSP path computation.
Irrespective of a particular Interface Switching Capability, the
Interface Switching Capability Descriptor always includes information
about the encoding supported by an interface. The defined encodings
are the same as LSP Encoding as defined in [GMPLS-SIG].
An interface may have more than one Interface Switching Capability
Descriptor. This is used to handle interfaces that support multiple
switching capabilities, for interfaces that have Max LSP Bandwidth
values that differ by priority level, and for interfaces that support
discrete bandwidths.
Depending on a particular Interface Switching Capability, the
Interface Switching Capability Descriptor may include additional
information, as specified below.
Kompella & Rekhter Standards Track PAGE 10
RFC 4202 Routing Extensions for GMPLS October 2005
2.4.1. Layer-2 Switch Capable
If an interface is of type L2SC, it means that the node receiving
data over this interface can switch the received frames based on the
layer 2 address. For example, an interface associated with a link
terminating on an ATM switch would be considered L2SC.
2.4.2. Packet-Switch Capable
If an interface is of type PSC-1 through PSC-4, it means that the
node receiving data over this interface can switch the received data
on a packet-by-packet basis, based on the label carried in the "shim"
header [RFC 3032]. The various levels of PSC establish a hierarchy of
LSPs tunneled within LSPs.
For Packet-Switch Capable interfaces the additional information
includes Maximum LSP Bandwidth, Minimum LSP Bandwidth, and interface
MTU.
For a simple (unbundled) link, the Maximum LSP Bandwidth at priority
p is defined to be the smaller of the unreserved bandwidth at
priority p and a "Maximum LSP Size" parameter which is locally
configured on the link, and whose default value is equal to the Max
Link Bandwidth. Maximum LSP Bandwidth for a bundled link is defined
in [LINK-BUNDLE].
The Maximum LSP Bandwidth takes the place of the Maximum Link
Bandwidth ([ISIS-TE], [OSPF-TE]). However, while Maximum Link
Bandwidth is a single fixed value (usually simply the link capacity),
Maximum LSP Bandwidth is carried per priority, and may vary as LSPs
are set up and torn down.
Although Maximum Link Bandwidth is to be deprecated, for backward
compatibility, one MAY set the Maximum Link Bandwidth to the Maximum
LSP Bandwidth at priority 7.
The Minimum LSP Bandwidth specifies the minimum bandwidth an LSP
could reserve.
Typical values for the Minimum LSP Bandwidth and for the Maximum LSP
Bandwidth are enumerated in [GMPLS-SIG].
On a PSC interface that supports Standard SDH encoding, an LSP at
priority p could reserve any bandwidth allowed by the branch of the
SDH hierarchy, with the leaf and the root of the branch being defined
by the Minimum LSP Bandwidth and the Maximum LSP Bandwidth at
priority p.
Kompella & Rekhter Standards Track PAGE 11
RFC 4202 Routing Extensions for GMPLS October 2005
On a PSC interface that supports Arbitrary SDH encoding, an LSP at
priority p could reserve any bandwidth between the Minimum LSP
Bandwidth and the Maximum LSP Bandwidth at priority p, provided that
the bandwidth reserved by the LSP is a multiple of the Minimum LSP
Bandwidth.
The Interface MTU is the maximum size of a packet that can be
transmitted on this interface without being fragmented.
2.4.3. Time-Division Multiplex Capable
If an interface is of type TDM, it means that the node receiving data
over this interface can multiplex or demultiplex channels within an
SDH payload.
For Time-Division Multiplex Capable interfaces the additional
information includes Maximum LSP Bandwidth, the information on
whether the interface supports Standard or Arbitrary SDH, and Minimum
LSP Bandwidth.
For a simple (unbundled) link the Maximum LSP Bandwidth at priority p
is defined as the maximum bandwidth an LSP at priority p could
reserve. Maximum LSP Bandwidth for a bundled link is defined in
[LINK-BUNDLE].
The Minimum LSP Bandwidth specifies the minimum bandwidth an LSP
could reserve.
Typical values for the Minimum LSP Bandwidth and for the Maximum LSP
Bandwidth are enumerated in [GMPLS-SIG].
On an interface having Standard SDH multiplexing, an LSP at priority
p could reserve any bandwidth allowed by the branch of the SDH
hierarchy, with the leaf and the root of the branch being defined by
the Minimum LSP Bandwidth and the Maximum LSP Bandwidth at priority
p.
On an interface having Arbitrary SDH multiplexing, an LSP at priority
p could reserve any bandwidth between the Minimum LSP Bandwidth and
the Maximum LSP Bandwidth at priority p, provided that the bandwidth
reserved by the LSP is a multiple of the Minimum LSP Bandwidth.
Interface Switching Capability Descriptor for the interfaces that
support sub VC-3 may include additional information. The nature and
the encoding of such information is outside the scope of this
document.
Kompella & Rekhter Standards Track PAGE 12
RFC 4202 Routing Extensions for GMPLS October 2005
A way to handle the case where an interface supports multiple
branches of the SDH multiplexing hierarchy, multiple Interface
Switching Capability Descriptors would be advertised, one per branch.
For example, if an interface supports VC-11 and VC-12 (which are not
part of same branch of SDH multiplexing tree), then it could
advertise two descriptors, one for each one.
2.4.4. Lambda-Switch Capable
If an interface is of type LSC, it means that the node receiving data
over this interface can recognize and switch individual lambdas
within the interface. An interface that allows only one lambda per
interface, and switches just that lambda is of type LSC.
The additional information includes Reservable Bandwidth per
priority, which specifies the bandwidth of an LSP that could be
supported by the interface at a given priority number.
A way to handle the case of multiple data rates or multiple encodings
within a single TE Link, multiple Interface Switching Capability
Descriptors would be advertised, one per supported data rate and
encoding combination. For example, an LSC interface could support
the establishment of LSC LSPs at both STM-16 and STM-64 data rates.
2.4.5. Fiber-Switch Capable
If an interface is of type FSC, it means that the node receiving data
over this interface can switch the entire contents to another
interface (without distinguishing lambdas, channels or packets).
I.e., an interface of type FSC switches at the granularity of an
entire interface, and can not extract individual lambdas within the
interface. An interface of type FSC can not restrict itself to just
one lambda.
2.4.6. Multiple Switching Capabilities per Interface
An interface that connects a link to an LSR may support not one, but
several Interface Switching Capabilities. For example, consider a
fiber link carrying a set of lambdas that terminates on an LSR
interface that could either cross-connect one of these lambdas to
some other outgoing optical channel, or could terminate the lambda,
and extract (demultiplex) data from that lambda using TDM, and then
cross-connect these TDM channels to some outgoing TDM channels. To
support this a Link State Advertisement may carry a list of Interface
Switching Capabilities Descriptors.
Kompella & Rekhter Standards Track PAGE 13
RFC 4202 Routing Extensions for GMPLS October 2005
2.4.7. Interface Switching Capabilities and Labels
Depicting a TE link as a tuple that contains Interface Switching
Capabilities at both ends of the link, some examples links may be:
[PSC, PSC] - a link between two packet LSRs
[TDM, TDM] - a link between two Digital Cross Connects
[LSC, LSC] - a link between two OXCs
[PSC, TDM] - a link between a packet LSR and Digital Cross Connect
[PSC, LSC] - a link between a packet LSR and an OXC
[TDM, LSC] - a link between a Digital Cross Connect and an OXC
Both ends of a given TE link has to use the same way of carrying
label information over that link. Carrying label information on a
given TE link depends on the Interface Switching Capability at both
ends of the link, and is determined as follows:
[PSC, PSC] - label is carried in the "shim" header [RFC 3032]
[TDM, TDM] - label represents a TDM time slot [GMPLS-SONET-SDH]
[LSC, LSC] - label represents a lambda
[FSC, FSC] - label represents a port on an OXC
[PSC, TDM] - label represents a TDM time slot [GMPLS-SONET-SDH]
[PSC, LSC] - label represents a lambda
[PSC, FSC] - label represents a port
[TDM, LSC] - label represents a lambda
[TDM, FSC] - label represents a port
[LSC, FSC] - label represents a port
2.4.8. Other Issues
It is possible that Interface Switching Capability Descriptor will
change over time, reflecting the allocation/deallocation of LSPs.
For example, assume that VC-3, VC-4, VC-4-4c, VC-4-16c and VC-4-64c
LSPs can be established on a STM-64 interface whose Encoding Type is
SDH. Thus, initially in the Interface Switching Capability
Descriptor the Minimum LSP Bandwidth is set to VC-3, and Maximum LSP
Bandwidth is set to STM-64 for all priorities. As soon as an LSP of
VC-3 size at priority 1 is established on the interface, it is no
longer capable of VC-4-64c for all but LSPs at priority 0.
Therefore, the node advertises a modified Interface Switching
Capability Descriptor indicating that the Maximum LSP Bandwidth is no
longer STM-64, but STM-16 for all but priority 0 (at priority 0 the
Maximum LSP Bandwidth is still STM-64). If subsequently there is
another VC-3 LSP, there is no change in the Interface Switching
Capability Descriptor. The Descriptor remains the same until the
node can no longer establish a VC-4-16c LSP over the interface (which
Kompella & Rekhter Standards Track PAGE 14
RFC 4202 Routing Extensions for GMPLS October 2005
means that at this point more than 144 time slots are taken by LSPs
on the interface). Once this happened, the Descriptor is modified
again, and the modified Descriptor is advertised to other nodes.
2.5. Bandwidth Encoding
Encoding in IEEE floating point format [IEEE] of the discrete values
that could be used to identify Unreserved bandwidth, Maximum LSP
bandwidth and Minimum LSP bandwidth is described in Section 3.1.2 of
[GMPLS-SIG].
3. Examples of Interface Switching Capability Descriptor
3.1. STM-16 POS Interface on a LSR
Interface Switching Capability Descriptor:
Interface Switching Capability = PSC-1
Encoding = SDH
Max LSP Bandwidth[p] = 2.5 Gbps, for all p
If multiple links with such interfaces at both ends were to be
advertised as one TE link, link bundling techniques should be used.
3.2. GigE Packet Interface on a LSR
Interface Switching Capability Descriptor:
Interface Switching Capability = PSC-1
Encoding = Ethernet 802.3
Max LSP Bandwidth[p] = 1.0 Gbps, for all p
If multiple links with such interfaces at both ends were to be
advertised as one TE link, link bundling techniques should be used.
3.3. STM-64 SDH Interface on a Digital Cross Connect with Standard SDH
Consider a branch of SDH multiplexing tree : VC-3, VC-4, VC-4-4c,
VC-4-16c, VC-4-64c. If it is possible to establish all these
connections on a STM-64 interface, the Interface Switching Capability
Descriptor of that interface can be advertised as follows:
Interface Switching Capability Descriptor:
Interface Switching Capability = TDM [Standard SDH]
Encoding = SDH
Min LSP Bandwidth = VC-3
Max LSP Bandwidth[p] = STM-64, for all p
If multiple links with such interfaces at both ends were to be
advertised as one TE link, link bundling techniques should be used.
Kompella & Rekhter Standards Track PAGE 15
RFC 4202 Routing Extensions for GMPLS October 2005
3.4. STM-64 SDH Interface on a Digital Cross Connect with Two Types of
SDH Multiplexing Hierarchy Supported
Interface Switching Capability Descriptor 1:
Interface Switching Capability = TDM [Standard SDH]
Encoding = SDH
Min LSP Bandwidth = VC-3
Max LSP Bandwidth[p] = STM-64, for all p
Interface Switching Capability Descriptor 2:
Interface Switching Capability = TDM [Arbitrary SDH]
Encoding = SDH
Min LSP Bandwidth = VC-4
Max LSP Bandwidth[p] = STM-64, for all p
If multiple links with such interfaces at both ends were to be
advertised as one TE link, link bundling techniques should be used.
3.5. Interface on an Opaque OXC (SDH Framed) with Support for One
Lambda per Port/Interface
An "opaque OXC" is considered operationally an OXC, as the whole
lambda (carrying the SDH line) is switched transparently without
further multiplexing/demultiplexing, and either none of the SDH
overhead bytes, or at least the important ones are not changed.
An interface on an opaque OXC handles a single wavelength, and cannot
switch multiple wavelengths as a whole. Thus, an interface on an
opaque OXC is always LSC, and not FSC, irrespective of whether there
is DWDM external to it.
Note that if there is external DWDM, then the framing understood by
the DWDM must be same as that understood by the OXC.
A TE link is a group of one or more interfaces on an OXC. All
interfaces on a given OXC are required to have identifiers unique to
that OXC, and these identifiers are used as labels (see 3.2.1.1 of
[GMPLS-SIG]).
The following is an example of an interface switching capability
descriptor on an SDH framed opaque OXC:
Interface Switching Capability Descriptor:
Interface Switching Capability = LSC
Encoding = SDH
Reservable Bandwidth = Determined by SDH Framer (say STM-64)
Kompella & Rekhter Standards Track PAGE 16
RFC 4202 Routing Extensions for GMPLS October 2005
3.6. Interface on a Transparent OXC (PXC) with External DWDM That
Understands SDH Framing
This example assumes that DWDM and PXC are connected in such a way
that each interface (port) on the PXC handles just a single
wavelength. Thus, even if in principle an interface on the PXC could
switch multiple wavelengths as a whole, in this particular case an
interface on the PXC is considered LSC, and not FSC.
_______
| |
/|___| |
| |___| PXC |
========| |___| |
| |___| |
\| |_______|
DWDM
(SDH framed)
A TE link is a group of one or more interfaces on the PXC. All
interfaces on a given PXC are required to have identifiers unique to
that PXC, and these identifiers are used as labels (see 3.2.1.1 of
[GMPLS-SIG]).
The following is an example of an interface switching capability
descriptor on a transparent OXC (PXC) with external DWDM that
understands SDH framing:
Interface Switching Capability Descriptor:
Interface Switching Capability = LSC
Encoding = SDH (comes from DWDM)
Reservable Bandwidth = Determined by DWDM (say STM-64)
3.7. Interface on a Transparent OXC (PXC) with External DWDM That Is
Transparent to Bit-Rate and Framing
This example assumes that DWDM and PXC are connected in such a way
that each interface (port) on the PXC handles just a single
wavelength. Thus, even if in principle an interface on the PXC could
switch multiple wavelengths as a whole, in this particular case an
interface on the PXC is considered LSC, and not FSC.
Kompella & Rekhter Standards Track PAGE 17
RFC 4202 Routing Extensions for GMPLS October 2005
_______
| |
/|___| |
| |___| PXC |
========| |___| |
| |___| |
\| |_______|
DWDM (transparent to bit-rate and framing)
A TE link is a group of one or more interfaces on the PXC. All
interfaces on a given PXC are required to have identifiers unique to
that PXC, and these identifiers are used as labels (see 3.2.1.1 of
[GMPLS-SIG]).
The following is an example of an interface switching capability
descriptor on a transparent OXC (PXC) with external DWDM that is
transparent to bit-rate and framing:
Interface Switching Capability Descriptor:
Interface Switching Capability = LSC
Encoding = Lambda (photonic)
Reservable Bandwidth = Determined by optical technology limits
3.8. Interface on a PXC with No External DWDM
The absence of DWDM in between two PXCs, implies that an interface is
not limited to one wavelength. Thus, the interface is advertised as
FSC.
A TE link is a group of one or more interfaces on the PXC. All
interfaces on a given PXC are required to have identifiers unique to
that PXC, and these identifiers are used as port labels (see 3.2.1.1
of [GMPLS-SIG]).
Interface Switching Capability Descriptor:
Interface Switching Capability = FSC
Encoding = Lambda (photonic)
Reservable Bandwidth = Determined by optical technology limits
Note that this example assumes that the PXC does not restrict each
port to carry only one wavelength.
3.9. Interface on a OXC with Internal DWDM That Understands SDH Framing
This example assumes that DWDM and OXC are connected in such a way
that each interface on the OXC handles multiple wavelengths
individually. In this case an interface on the OXC is considered
LSC, and not FSC.
Kompella & Rekhter Standards Track PAGE 18
RFC 4202 Routing Extensions for GMPLS October 2005
_______
| |
/|| ||\
| || OXC || |
========| || || |====
| || || |
\||_______||/
DWDM
(SDH framed)
A TE link is a group of one or more of the interfaces on the OXC.
All lambdas associated with a particular interface are required to
have identifiers unique to that interface, and these identifiers are
used as labels (see 3.2.1.1 of [GMPLS-SIG]).
The following is an example of an interface switching capability
descriptor on an OXC with internal DWDM that understands SDH framing
and supports discrete bandwidths:
Interface Switching Capability Descriptor:
Interface Switching Capability = LSC
Encoding = SDH (comes from DWDM)
Max LSP Bandwidth = Determined by DWDM (say STM-16)
Interface Switching Capability = LSC
Encoding = SDH (comes from DWDM)
Max LSP Bandwidth = Determined by DWDM (say STM-64)
3.10. Interface on a OXC with Internal DWDM That Is Transparent to
Bit-Rate and Framing
This example assumes that DWDM and OXC are connected in such a way
that each interface on the OXC handles multiple wavelengths
individually. In this case an interface on the OXC is considered
LSC, and not FSC.
_______
| |
/|| ||\
| || OXC || |
========| || || |====
| || || |
\||_______||/
DWDM (transparent to bit-rate and framing)
Kompella & Rekhter Standards Track PAGE 19
RFC 4202 Routing Extensions for GMPLS October 2005
A TE link is a group of one or more of the interfaces on the OXC.
All lambdas associated with a particular interface are required to
have identifiers unique to that interface, and these identifiers are
used as labels (see 3.2.1.1 of [GMPLS-SIG]).
The following is an example of an interface switching capability
descriptor on an OXC with internal DWDM that is transparent to bit-
rate and framing:
Interface Switching Capability Descriptor:
Interface Switching Capability = LSC
Encoding = Lambda (photonic)
Max LSP Bandwidth = Determined by optical technology limits
4. Example of Interfaces That Support Multiple Switching Capabilities
There can be many combinations possible, some are described below.
4.1. Interface on a PXC+TDM Device with External DWDM
As discussed earlier, the presence of the external DWDM limits that
only one wavelength be on a port of the PXC. On such a port, the
attached PXC+TDM device can do one of the following. The wavelength
may be cross-connected by the PXC element to other out-bound optical
channel, or the wavelength may be terminated as an SDH interface and
SDH channels switched.
From a GMPLS perspective the PXC+TDM functionality is treated as a
single interface. The interface is described using two Interface
descriptors, one for the LSC and another for the TDM, with
appropriate parameters. For example,
Interface Switching Capability Descriptor:
Interface Switching Capability = LSC
Encoding = SDH (comes from WDM)
Reservable Bandwidth = STM-64
and
Interface Switching Capability Descriptor:
Interface Switching Capability = TDM [Standard SDH]
Encoding = SDH
Min LSP Bandwidth = VC-3
Max LSP Bandwidth[p] = STM-64, for all p
Kompella & Rekhter Standards Track PAGE 20
RFC 4202 Routing Extensions for GMPLS October 2005
4.2. Interface on an Opaque OXC+TDM Device with External DWDM
An interface on an "opaque OXC+TDM" device would also be advertised
as LSC+TDM much the same way as the previous case.
4.3. Interface on a PXC+LSR Device with External DWDM
As discussed earlier, the presence of the external DWDM limits that
only one wavelength be on a port of the PXC. On such a port, the
attached PXC+LSR device can do one of the following. The wavelength
may be cross-connected by the PXC element to other out-bound optical
channel, or the wavelength may be terminated as a Packet interface
and packets switched.
From a GMPLS perspective the PXC+LSR functionality is treated as a
single interface. The interface is described using two Interface
descriptors, one for the LSC and another for the PSC, with
appropriate parameters. For example,
Interface Switching Capability Descriptor:
Interface Switching Capability = LSC
Encoding = SDH (comes from WDM)
Reservable Bandwidth = STM-64
and
Interface Switching Capability Descriptor:
Interface Switching Capability = PSC-1
Encoding = SDH
Max LSP Bandwidth[p] = 10 Gbps, for all p
4.4. Interface on a TDM+LSR Device
On a TDM+LSR device that offers a channelized SDH interface the
following may be possible:
- A subset of the SDH channels may be uncommitted. That is, they
are not currently in use and hence are available for allocation.
- A second subset of channels may already be committed for transit
purposes. That is, they are already cross-connected by the SDH
cross connect function to other out-bound channels and thus are
not immediately available for allocation.
- Another subset of channels could be in use as terminal channels.
That is, they are already allocated by terminate on a packet
interface and packets switched.
Kompella & Rekhter Standards Track PAGE 21
RFC 4202 Routing Extensions for GMPLS October 2005
From a GMPLS perspective the TDM+PSC functionality is treated as a
single interface. The interface is described using two Interface
descriptors, one for the TDM and another for the PSC, with
appropriate parameters. For example,
Interface Switching Capability Descriptor:
Interface Switching Capability = TDM [Standard SDH]
Encoding = SDH
Min LSP Bandwidth = VC-3
Max LSP Bandwidth[p] = STM-64, for all p
and
Interface Switching Capability Descriptor:
Interface Switching Capability = PSC-1
Encoding = SDH
Max LSP Bandwidth[p] = 10 Gbps, for all p
5. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Suresh Katukam, Jonathan Lang, Zhi-
Wei Lin, and Quaizar Vohra for their comments and contributions to
the document. Thanks too to Stephen Shew for the text regarding
"Representing TE Link Capabilities".
6. Security Considerations
There are a number of security concerns in implementing the
extensions proposed here, particularly since these extensions will
potentially be used to control the underlying transport
infrastructure. It is vital that there be secure and/or
authenticated means of transferring this information among the
entities that require its use.
While this document proposes extensions, it does not state how these
extensions are implemented in routing protocols such as OSPF or
IS-IS. The documents that do state how routing protocols implement
these extensions [GMPLS-OSPF, GMPLS-ISIS] must also state how the
information is to be secured.
Kompella & Rekhter Standards Track PAGE 22
RFC 4202 Routing Extensions for GMPLS October 2005
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[GMPLS-OSPF] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF
Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005.
[GMPLS-SIG] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional
Description", RFC 3471, January 2003.
[GMPLS-SONET-SDH] Mannie, E. and D. Papadimitriou, "Generalized
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions
for Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and
Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control", RFC
3946, October 2004.
[IEEE] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Binary Floating-Point
Arithmetic", Standard 754-1985, 1985 (ISBN 1-5593-
7653-8).
[LINK-BUNDLE] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., and L. Berger, "Link
Bundling in MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC
4201, October 2005.
[LMP] Lang, J., Ed., "Link Management Protocol (LMP)",
RFC 4204, October 2005.
[LSP-HIER] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths
(LSP) Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE))",
RFC 4206, October 2005.
[OSPF-TE] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic
Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC
3630, September 2003.
[RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC 3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label
Stack Encoding", RFC 3032, January 2001.
Kompella & Rekhter Standards Track PAGE 23
RFC 4202 Routing Extensions for GMPLS October 2005
7.2. Informative References
[GMPLS-ISIS] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed.,
"Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS)
Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4205, October 2005.
[ISIS-TE] Smit, H. and T. Li, "Intermediate System to
Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions for Traffic
Engineering (TE)", RFC 3784, June 2004.
8. Contributors
Ayan Banerjee
Calient Networks
5853 Rue Ferrari
San Jose, CA 95138
Phone: +1.408.972.3645
EMail: abanerjee@calient.net
John Drake
Calient Networks
5853 Rue Ferrari
San Jose, CA 95138
Phone: (408) 972-3720
EMail: jdrake@calient.net
Greg Bernstein
Ciena Corporation
10480 Ridgeview Court
Cupertino, CA 94014
Phone: (408) 366-4713
EMail: greg@ciena.com
Don Fedyk
Nortel Networks Corp.
600 Technology Park Drive
Billerica, MA 01821
Phone: +1-978-288-4506
EMail: dwfedyk@nortelnetworks.com
Kompella & Rekhter Standards Track PAGE 24
RFC 4202 Routing Extensions for GMPLS October 2005
Eric Mannie
Libre Exaministe
EMail: eric_mannie@hotmail.com
Debanjan Saha
Tellium Optical Systems
2 Crescent Place
P.O. Box 901
Ocean Port, NJ 07757
Phone: (732) 923-4264
EMail: dsaha@tellium.com
Vishal Sharma
Metanoia, Inc.
335 Elan Village Lane, Unit 203
San Jose, CA 95134-2539
Phone: +1 408-943-1794
EMail: v.sharma@ieee.org
Debashis Basak
AcceLight Networks,
70 Abele Rd, Bldg 1200
Bridgeville PA 15017
EMail: dbasak@accelight.com
Lou Berger
Movaz Networks, Inc.
7926 Jones Branch Drive
Suite 615
McLean VA, 22102
EMail: lberger@movaz.com
Kompella & Rekhter Standards Track PAGE 25
RFC 4202 Routing Extensions for GMPLS October 2005
Authors' Addresses
Kireeti Kompella
Juniper Networks, Inc.
1194 N. Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
EMail: kireeti@juniper.net
Yakov Rekhter
Juniper Networks, Inc.
1194 N. Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
EMail: yakov@juniper.net
Kompella & Rekhter Standards Track PAGE 26
RFC 4202 Routing Extensions for GMPLS October 2005
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright © The Internet Society (2005).
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
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
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
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Kompella & Rekhter Standards Track PAGE 27
Routing Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
RFC TOTAL SIZE: 57333 bytes
PUBLICATION DATE: Monday, October 10th, 2005
LEGAL RIGHTS: The IETF Trust (see BCP 78)
|
