summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/doc/rfc/rfc8330.txt
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc8330.txt')
-rw-r--r--doc/rfc/rfc8330.txt563
1 files changed, 563 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc8330.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc8330.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7ef4400
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc8330.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,563 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) H. Long
+Request for Comments: 8330 M. Ye
+Category: Standards Track Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
+ISSN: 2070-1721 G. Mirsky
+ ZTE
+ A. D'Alessandro
+ Telecom Italia S.p.A.
+ H. Shah
+ Ciena
+ February 2018
+
+
+ OSPF Traffic Engineering (OSPF-TE) Link Availability Extension
+ for Links with Variable Discrete Bandwidth
+
+Abstract
+
+ A network may contain links with variable discrete bandwidth, e.g.,
+ microwave and copper. The bandwidth of such links may change
+ discretely in response to a changing external environment. The word
+ "availability" is typically used to describe such links during
+ network planning. This document defines a new type of Generalized
+ Switching Capability-Specific Information (SCSI) TLV to extend the
+ Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Open Shortest Path
+ First (OSPF) routing protocol. The extension can be used for route
+ computation in a network that contains links with variable discrete
+ bandwidth. Note that this document only covers the mechanisms by
+ which the availability information is distributed. The mechanisms by
+ which availability information of a link is determined and the use of
+ the distributed information for route computation are outside the
+ scope of this document. It is intended that technology-specific
+ documents will reference this document to describe specific uses.
+
+Status of This Memo
+
+ This is an Internet Standards Track document.
+
+ This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
+ (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
+ received public review and has been approved for publication by the
+ Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
+ Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
+
+ Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
+ and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
+ https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8330.
+
+
+
+
+
+Long, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
+
+RFC 8330 Availability Extension to OSPF-TE February 2018
+
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+ Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
+ document authors. All rights reserved.
+
+ This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
+ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
+ (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
+ publication of this document. Please review these documents
+ carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
+ to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
+ include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
+ the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
+ described in the Simplified BSD License.
+
+Table of Contents
+
+ 1. Introduction ....................................................3
+ 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document ..........................3
+ 2. Abbreviations ...................................................4
+ 3. Overview ........................................................4
+ 4. TE Metric Extension to OSPF-TE ..................................5
+ 4.1. Availability SCSI-TLV ......................................5
+ 4.2. Processing Procedures ......................................6
+ 5. Security Considerations .........................................6
+ 6. IANA Considerations .............................................7
+ 7. References ......................................................7
+ 7.1. Normative References .......................................7
+ 7.2. Informative References .....................................8
+ Acknowledgments ...................................................10
+ Authors' Addresses ................................................10
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Long, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
+
+RFC 8330 Availability Extension to OSPF-TE February 2018
+
+
+1. Introduction
+
+ Some data-plane technologies, e.g., microwave and copper, allow
+ seamless changes of maximum physical bandwidth through a set of known
+ discrete values. The parameter "availability", as described in
+ [G.827], [F.1703], and [P.530], is often used to describe the link
+ capacity. The availability is a time scale, representing a
+ proportion of the operating time that the requested bandwidth is
+ ensured. To set up a Label Switched Path (LSP) across these links,
+ availability information is required by the nodes to verify the
+ bandwidth before making a bandwidth reservation. Assigning different
+ availability classes over such links provides for more efficient
+ planning of link capacity to support different types of services.
+ The link availability information will be determined by the operator
+ and is statically configured. It will usually be determined from the
+ availability requirements of the services expected to be carried on
+ the LSP. For example, voice service usually needs "five nines"
+ availability, while non-real-time services may adequately perform at
+ four or three nines availability. For the route computation, both
+ the availability information and the bandwidth resource information
+ are needed. Since different service types may need different
+ availability guarantees, multiple <availability, bandwidth> pairs may
+ be required to be associated with a link.
+
+ In this document, a new type of Generalized SCSI-TLV, the
+ Availability SCSI-TLV, is defined. It is intended that technology-
+ specific documents will reference this document to describe specific
+ uses. The signaling extension to support links with variable
+ discrete bandwidth is defined in [RSVP-TE-Availability].
+
+1.1. Conventions Used in This Document
+
+ The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
+ "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
+ "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
+ BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
+ capitals, as shown here.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Long, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
+
+RFC 8330 Availability Extension to OSPF-TE February 2018
+
+
+2. Abbreviations
+
+ The following abbreviations are used in this document:
+
+ GMPLS Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching
+
+ ISCD Interface Switching Capability Descriptor
+
+ LSA Link State Advertisement
+
+ LSP Label Switched Path
+
+ OSPF Open Shortest Path First
+
+ SCSI Switching Capability-Specific Information
+
+ SPF Shortest Path First
+
+ TE Traffic Engineering
+
+ TLV Type-Length-Value
+
+3. Overview
+
+ A node that has link(s) with variable discrete bandwidth attached
+ should include an <availability, bandwidth> information list in its
+ OSPF-TE LSA messages. The list provides the mapping between the link
+ nominal bandwidth and its availability level. This information is
+ used for path calculation by the node(s). The setup of an LSP
+ requires this information to be flooded in the network and used by
+ the nodes or the PCE for the path computation. In this document, a
+ new type of Generalized SCSI-TLV, the Availability SCSI-TLV, is
+ defined. The computed path can then be provisioned via the signaling
+ protocol [RSVP-TE-Availability].
+
+ Note: The mechanisms described in this document only distribute
+ availability information. The methods for measuring the information
+ or using the information for route computation are outside the scope
+ of this document.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Long, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
+
+RFC 8330 Availability Extension to OSPF-TE February 2018
+
+
+4. TE Metric Extension to OSPF-TE
+
+4.1. Availability SCSI-TLV
+
+ The Generalized SCSI is defined in [RFC8258]. This document defines
+ a new type of Generalized SCSI-TLV called the Availability SCSI-TLV.
+ The Availability SCSI-TLV can be included one or more times. It has
+ the following format:
+
+ 0 1 2 3
+ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+ | Type | Length |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+ | Availability level |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+ | LSP Bandwidth at Availability level n |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+
+ Type: 0x000A, 16 bits
+
+ Length: 2 octets (16 bits)
+
+ Availability level: 32 bits
+
+ This field is a binary32-format floating-point number as
+ defined by [IEEE754-2008]. The bytes are transmitted in
+ network order; that is, the byte containing the sign bit is
+ transmitted first. This field describes the decimal value of
+ the availability guarantee of the Switching Capability in the
+ Interface Switching Capability Descriptor object [RFC4202].
+ The value MUST be less than 1. The Availability level field is
+ usually expressed as the value 0.99/0.999/0.9999/0.99999.
+
+ LSP Bandwidth at Availability level n: 32 bits
+
+ This field is a 32-bit IEEE floating-point number as defined by
+ [IEEE754-2008]. The bytes are transmitted in network order;
+ that is, the byte containing the sign bit is transmitted first.
+ This field describes the LSP bandwidth for the availability
+ level represented in the Availability level field. The units
+ are bytes per second.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Long, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
+
+RFC 8330 Availability Extension to OSPF-TE February 2018
+
+
+4.2. Processing Procedures
+
+ The ISCD allows routing protocols such as OSPF to carry technology-
+ specific information in the "Switching Capability-specific
+ information" field; see [RFC4203]. A node advertising an interface
+ with a Switching Capability that supports variable discrete bandwidth
+ attached SHOULD contain one or more Availability SCSI-TLVs in its
+ OSPF-TE LSA messages. Each Availability SCSI-TLV provides
+ information about how much bandwidth a link can support for a
+ specified availability. This information may be used for path
+ calculation by the node(s).
+
+ The Availability SCSI-TLV MUST NOT be sent in ISCDs with Switching
+ Capability field values that have not been defined to support the
+ Availability SCSI-TLV. Non-supporting nodes would see such an
+ ISCD/LSA as malformed.
+
+ The absence of the Availability SCSI-TLV in an ISCD containing
+ Switching Capability field values that have been defined to support
+ the Availability SCSI-TLV SHALL be interpreted as representing the
+ fixed-bandwidth link with the highest availability value.
+
+ Only one Availability SCSI-TLV for the specific availability level
+ SHOULD be sent. If multiple TLVs are present, the Availability
+ SCSI-TLV with the lowest bandwidth value SHALL be processed. If an
+ Availability SCSI-TLV with an invalid value (e.g., larger than 1) is
+ received, the Availability SCSI-TLV will be ignored.
+
+5. Security Considerations
+
+ This document specifies the contents of Opaque LSAs in OSPFv2.
+ Tampering with GMPLS-TE LSAs may have an effect on TE computations.
+ [RFC3630] suggests such mechanisms as the mechanism described in
+ [RFC2154] to protect the transmission of this information, and those
+ or other mechanisms should be used to secure and/or authenticate the
+ information carried in the Opaque LSAs. An analysis of the security
+ of OSPF is provided in [RFC6863] and applies to the OSPF extension
+ defined in this document. Any new mechanisms developed to protect
+ the transmission of information carried in Opaque LSAs will also
+ automatically protect the extension defined in this document.
+
+ Please refer to [RFC5920] for details on security threats; defensive
+ techniques; monitoring, detection, and reporting of security attacks;
+ and requirements.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Long, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
+
+RFC 8330 Availability Extension to OSPF-TE February 2018
+
+
+6. IANA Considerations
+
+ This document introduces a new type of Generalized SCSI-TLV
+ (Availability) that is carried in the OSPF-TE LSA messages.
+ Technology-specific documents will reference this document to
+ describe the specific use of this Availability SCSI-TLV.
+
+ IANA created a registry called the "Generalized SCSI (Switching
+ Capability Specific Information) TLV Types" registry [RFC8258]. The
+ registry has been updated to include the following Availability
+ SCSI-TLV:
+
+ Type Description Switching Type Reference
+ ------ ------------ -------------- ---------
+ 0x000A Availability 5, 52 RFC 8330
+
+ New switching types are required in order to use the Availability
+ SCSI-TLV. IANA has registered the following in the "Switching Types"
+ registry:
+
+ Value Name Reference
+ ----- -------------------------- ---------
+ 5 PSC with GSCSI support RFC 8330
+ 52 L2SC with GSCSI support RFC 8330
+
+7. References
+
+7.1. Normative References
+
+ [IEEE754-2008]
+ IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Floating-Point Arithmetic",
+ IEEE 754-2008, DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2008.4610935.
+
+ [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+ Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
+ DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
+ <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
+
+ [RFC4202] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing
+ Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
+ Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, DOI 10.17487/RFC4202,
+ October 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4202>.
+
+ [RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions
+ in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
+ (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, DOI 10.17487/RFC4203, October 2005,
+ <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4203>.
+
+
+
+
+Long, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
+
+RFC 8330 Availability Extension to OSPF-TE February 2018
+
+
+ [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in
+ RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174,
+ DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017,
+ <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
+
+ [RFC8258] Ceccarelli, D. and L. Berger, "Generalized SCSI: A Generic
+ Structure for Interface Switching Capability Descriptor
+ (ISCD) Switching Capability Specific Information (SCSI)",
+ RFC 8258, DOI 10.17487/RFC8258, October 2017,
+ <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8258>.
+
+7.2. Informative References
+
+ [F.1703] International Telecommunication Union, "Availability
+ objectives for real digital fixed wireless links used in
+ 27 500 km hypothetical reference paths and connections",
+ ITU-R Recommendation F.1703-0, January 2005,
+ <https://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-F.1703-0-200501-I/en>.
+
+ [G.827] International Telecommunication Union, "Availability
+ performance parameters and objectives for end-to-end
+ international constant bit-rate digital paths", ITU-T
+ Recommendation G.827, September 2003,
+ <https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.827/en>.
+
+ [P.530] International Telecommunication Union, "Propagation data
+ and prediction methods required for the design of
+ terrestrial line-of-sight systems", ITU-R
+ Recommendation P.530-17, December 2017,
+ <https://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-P.530/en>.
+
+ [RFC2154] Murphy, S., Badger, M., and B. Wellington, "OSPF with
+ Digital Signatures", RFC 2154, DOI 10.17487/RFC2154,
+ June 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2154>.
+
+ [RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
+ (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,
+ DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003,
+ <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3630>.
+
+ [RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
+ Networks", RFC 5920, DOI 10.17487/RFC5920, July 2010,
+ <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5920>.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Long, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
+
+RFC 8330 Availability Extension to OSPF-TE February 2018
+
+
+ [RFC6863] Hartman, S. and D. Zhang, "Analysis of OSPF Security
+ According to the Keying and Authentication for Routing
+ Protocols (KARP) Design Guide", RFC 6863,
+ DOI 10.17487/RFC6863, March 2013,
+ <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6863>.
+
+ [RSVP-TE-Availability]
+ Long, H., Ye, M., Mirsky, G., D'Alessandro, A., and H.
+ Shah, "Ethernet Traffic Parameters with Availability
+ Information", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-
+ bandwidth-availability-08, January 2018.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Long, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
+
+RFC 8330 Availability Extension to OSPF-TE February 2018
+
+
+Acknowledgments
+
+ The authors would like to thank Acee Lindem, Daniele Ceccarelli, and
+ Lou Berger for their comments on the document.
+
+Authors' Addresses
+
+ Hao Long
+ Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
+ No. 1899, Xiyuan Avenue, Hi-tech Western District
+ Chengdu 611731
+ China
+
+ Phone: +86-18615778750
+ Email: longhao@huawei.com
+
+
+ Min Ye
+ Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
+ No. 1899, Xiyuan Avenue, Hi-tech Western District
+ Chengdu 611731
+ China
+
+ Email: amy.yemin@huawei.com
+
+
+ Greg Mirsky
+ ZTE
+
+ Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
+
+
+ Alessandro D'Alessandro
+ Telecom Italia S.p.A.
+
+ Email: alessandro.dalessandro@telecomitalia.it
+
+
+ Himanshu Shah
+ Ciena Corp.
+ 3939 North First Street
+ San Jose, CA 95134
+ United States of America
+
+ Email: hshah@ciena.com
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Long, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
+