From 4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 20:54:24 +0100 Subject: doc: Add RFC documents --- doc/rfc/rfc4258.txt | 1235 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 1235 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc4258.txt (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc4258.txt') diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc4258.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc4258.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..3bc2dbb --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc4258.txt @@ -0,0 +1,1235 @@ + + + + + + +Network Working Group D. Brungard, Ed. +Request for Comments: 4258 ATT +Category: Informational November 2005 + + + Requirements for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) + Routing for the Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON) + +Status of This Memo + + This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does + not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this + memo is unlimited. + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). + +Abstract + + The Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) suite of + protocols has been defined to control different switching + technologies as well as different applications. These include + support for requesting Time Division Multiplexing (TDM) connections + including Synchronous Optical Network (SONET)/Synchronous Digital + Hierarchy (SDH) and Optical Transport Networks (OTNs). + + This document concentrates on the routing requirements placed on the + GMPLS suite of protocols in order to support the capabilities and + functionalities of an Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON) + as defined by the ITU-T. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Brungard, Ed. Informational [Page 1] + +RFC 4258 GMPLS Routing for ASON November 2005 + + +Table of Contents + + 1. Introduction ....................................................2 + 2. Conventions Used in This Document ...............................4 + 3. ASON Routing Architecture and Requirements ......................4 + 3.1. Multiple Hierarchical Levels of ASON Routing Areas (RAs) ...5 + 3.2. Hierarchical Routing Information Dissemination .............6 + 3.3. Configuration ..............................................8 + 3.3.1. Configuring the Multi-Level Hierarchy ...............8 + 3.3.2. Configuring RC Adjacencies ..........................8 + 3.4. Evolution ..................................................8 + 3.5. Routing Attributes .........................................8 + 3.5.1. Taxonomy of Routing Attributes ......................9 + 3.5.2. Commonly Advertised Information .....................9 + 3.5.3. Node Attributes ....................................10 + 3.5.4. Link Attributes ....................................11 + 4. Security Considerations ........................................12 + 5. Conclusions ....................................................12 + 6. Contributors ...................................................15 + 7. Acknowledgements ...............................................15 + 8. References .....................................................16 + 8.1. Normative References ......................................16 + 8.2. Informative References ....................................16 + +1. Introduction + + The Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) suite of + protocols provides, among other capabilities, support for controlling + different switching technologies. These include support for + requesting TDM connections utilizing SONET/SDH (see [T1.105] and + [G.707], respectively) as well as Optical Transport Networks (OTNs, + see [G.709]). However, there are certain capabilities that are + needed to support the ITU-T G.8080 control plane architecture for an + Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON). Therefore, it is + desirable to understand the corresponding requirements for the GMPLS + protocol suite. The ASON control plane architecture is defined in + [G.8080]; ASON routing requirements are identified in [G.7715] and in + [G.7715.1] for ASON link state protocols. These Recommendations + apply to all [G.805] layer networks (e.g., SDH and OTN), and provide + protocol-neutral functional requirements and architecture. + + This document focuses on the routing requirements for the GMPLS suite + of protocols to support the capabilities and functionality of ASON + control planes. This document summarizes the ASON requirements using + ASON terminology. This document does not address GMPLS applicability + or GMPLS capabilities. Any protocol (in particular, routing) + + + + + +Brungard, Ed. Informational [Page 2] + +RFC 4258 GMPLS Routing for ASON November 2005 + + + applicability, design, or suggested extensions are strictly outside + the scope of this document. ASON (Routing) terminology sections are + provided in Appendixes 1 and 2. + + The ASON routing architecture is based on the following assumptions: + + - A network is subdivided based on operator decision and criteria + (e.g., geography, administration, and/or technology); the network + subdivisions are defined in ASON as Routing Areas (RAs). + + - The routing architecture and protocols applied after the network + is subdivided are an operator's choice. A multi-level hierarchy + of RAs, as defined in ITU-T [G.7715] and [G.7715.1], provides for + a hierarchical relationship of RAs based on containment; i.e., + child RAs are always contained within a parent RA. The + hierarchical containment relationship of RAs provides for routing + information abstraction, thereby enabling scalable routing + information representation. The maximum number of hierarchical RA + levels to be supported is not specified (outside the scope of this + document). + + - Within an ASON RA and for each level of the routing hierarchy, + multiple routing paradigms (hierarchical, step-by-step, source- + based), centralized or distributed path computation, and multiple + different routing protocols MAY be supported. The architecture + does not assume a one-to-one correspondence between a routing + protocol and an RA level, and allows the routing protocol(s) used + within different RAs (including child and parent RAs) to be + different. The realization of the routing paradigm(s) to support + the hierarchical levels of RAs is not specified. + + - The routing adjacency topology (i.e., the associated Protocol + Controller (PC) connectivity) and transport topology are NOT + assumed to be congruent. + + - The requirements support architectural evolution, e.g., a change + in the number of RA levels, as well as aggregation and + segmentation of RAs. + + The description of the ASON routing architecture provides for a + conceptual reference architecture, with definition of functional + components and common information elements to enable end-to-end + routing in the case of protocol heterogeneity and facilitate + management of ASON networks. This description is only conceptual: no + physical partitioning of these functions is implied. + + + + + + +Brungard, Ed. Informational [Page 3] + +RFC 4258 GMPLS Routing for ASON November 2005 + + +2. Conventions Used in This Document + + The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", + "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this + document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. + + Although [RFC2119] describes interpretations of these key words in + terms of protocol specifications and implementations, they are used + in this document to describe design requirements for protocol + extensions. + +3. ASON Routing Architecture and Requirements + + The fundamental architectural concept is the RA and its related + functional components (see Appendix 2 on terminology). The routing + services offered by an RA are provided by a Routing Performer (RP). + An RP is responsible for a single RA, and it MAY be functionally + realized using distributed Routing Controllers (RCs). The RC, + itself, MAY be implemented as a cluster of distributed entities (ASON + refers to the cluster as a Routing Control Domain (RCD)). The RC + components for an RA receive routing topology information from their + associated Link Resource Manager(s) (LRMs) and store this information + in the Routing Information Database (RDB). The RDB is replicated at + each RC bounded to the same RA, and MAY contain information about + multiple transport plane network layers. Whenever the routing + topology changes, the LRM informs the corresponding RC, which in turn + updates its associated RDB. In order to ensure RDB synchronization, + the RCs cooperate and exchange routing information. Path computation + functions MAY exist in each RC, MAY exist on selected RCs within the + same RA, or MAY be centralized for the RA. + + + In this context, communication between RCs within the same RA is + realized using a particular routing protocol (or multiple protocols). + In ASON, the communication component is represented by the protocol + controller (PC) component(s) and the protocol messages are conveyed + over the ASON control plane's Signaling Control Network (SCN). The + PC MAY convey information for one or more transport network layers + (refer to the note in Section 3.2). The RC is protocol independent, + and RC communications MAY be realized by multiple, different PCs + within an RA. + + The ASON routing architecture defines a multi-level routing hierarchy + of RAs based on a containment model to support routing information + abstraction. [G.7715.1] defines the ASON hierarchical link state + routing protocol requirements for communication of routing + information within an RA (one level) to support hierarchical routing + information dissemination (including summarized routing information + + + +Brungard, Ed. Informational [Page 4] + +RFC 4258 GMPLS Routing for ASON November 2005 + + + for other levels). The communication between any of the other + functional component(s) (e.g., SCN, LRM, and between RCDs (RC-RC + communication between RAs)) is outside the scope of [G.7715.1] + protocol requirements and, thus, is also outside the scope of this + document. + + ASON routing components are identified by identifiers that are drawn + from different name spaces (see [G.7715.1]). These are control plane + identifiers for transport resources, components, and SCN addresses. + The formats of those identifiers in a routing protocol realization + SHALL be implementation specific and outside the scope of this + document. + + The failure of an RC, or the failure of communications between RCs, + and the subsequent recovery from the failure condition MUST NOT + disrupt calls in progress (i.e., already established) and their + associated connections. Calls being set up MAY fail to complete, and + the call setup service MAY be unavailable during recovery actions. + +3.1. Multiple Hierarchical Levels of ASON Routing Areas (RAs) + + [G.8080] introduces the concept of a Routing Area (RA) in reference + to a network subdivision. RAs provide for routing information + abstraction. Except for the single RA case, RAs are hierarchically + contained: a higher-level (parent) RA contains lower-level (child) + RAs that in turn MAY also contain RAs, etc. Thus, RAs contain RAs + that recursively define successive hierarchical RA levels. + + However, the RA containment relationship describes only an + architectural hierarchical organization of RAs. It does not restrict + a specific routing protocol's realization (e.g., OSPF multi-areas, + path computation, etc.). Moreover, the realization of the routing + paradigm to support a hierarchical organization of RAs and the number + of hierarchical RA levels to be supported is routing protocol + specific and outside the scope of this document. + + In a multi-level hierarchy of RAs, it is necessary to distinguish + among RCs for the different levels of the RA hierarchy. Before any + pair of RCs establishes communication, they MUST verify that they are + bound to the same parent RA (see Section 3.2). An RA identifier (RA + ID) is required to provide the scope within which the RCs can + communicate. To distinguish between RCs bound to the same RA, an RC + identifier (RC ID) is required; the RC ID MUST be unique within its + containing RA. + + An RA represents a partition of the data plane, and its identifier + (i.e., RA ID) is used within the control plane as a reference to the + data plane partition. Each RA within a carrier's network SHALL be + + + +Brungard, Ed. Informational [Page 5] + +RFC 4258 GMPLS Routing for ASON November 2005 + + + uniquely identifiable. RA IDs MAY be associated with a transport + plane name space, whereas RC IDs are associated with a control plane + name space. + +3.2. Hierarchical Routing Information Dissemination + + Routing information can be exchanged between RCs bound to adjacent + levels of the RA hierarchy, i.e., Level N+1 and N, where Level N + represents the RAs contained by Level N+1. The links connecting RAs + may be viewed as external links (inter-RA links), and the links + representing connectivity within an RA may be viewed as internal + links (intra-RA links). The external links to an RA at one level of + the hierarchy may be internal links in the parent RA. Intra-RA links + of a child RA MAY be hidden from the parent RA's view. + + The physical location of RCs for adjacent RA levels, their + relationship, and their communication protocol(s) are outside the + scope of this document. No assumption is made regarding how RCs + communicate between adjacent RA levels. If routing information is + exchanged between an RC, its parent, and its child RCs, it SHOULD + include reachability (see Section 3.5.3) and MAY include, upon policy + decision, node and link topology. Communication between RAs only + takes place between RCs with a parent/child relationship. RCs of one + RA never communicate with RCs of another RA at the same level. There + SHOULD not be any dependencies on the different routing protocols + used within an RA or in different RAs. + + Multiple RCs bound to the same RA MAY transform (filter, summarize, + etc.) and then forward information to RCs at different levels. + However, in this case, the resulting information at the receiving + level must be self-consistent (i.e., ensure consistency between + transform operations performed on routing information at different + levels to ensure proper information processing). This MAY be + achieved using a number of mechanisms. + + Note: There is no implied relationship between multi-layer transport + networks and multi-level routing. Implementations MAY support a + hierarchical routing topology (multi-level) with a single routing + protocol instance for multiple transport switching layers or a + hierarchical routing topology for one transport switching layer. + + 1. Type of Information Exchanged + + The type of information flowing upward (i.e., Level N to Level + N+1) and the information flowing downward (i.e., Level N+1 to + Level N) are used for similar purposes, namely, the exchange of + reachability information and summarized topology information to + + + + +Brungard, Ed. Informational [Page 6] + +RFC 4258 GMPLS Routing for ASON November 2005 + + + allow routing across multiple RAs. The summarization of topology + information may impact the accuracy of routing and may require + additional path calculation. + + The following information exchanges are expected: + + - Level N+1 visibility to Level N reachability and topology (or + upward information communication) allowing RC(s) at Level N+1 + to determine the reachable endpoints from Level N. + + - Level N visibility to Level N+1 reachability and topology (or + downward information communication) allowing RC(s) bounded to + an RA at Level N to develop paths to reachable endpoints + outside of the RA. + + 2. Interactions between Upward and Downward Communication + + When both upward and downward information exchanges contain + endpoint reachability information, a feedback loop could + potentially be created. Consequently, the routing protocol MUST + include a method to: + + - prevent information propagated from a Level N+1 RA's RC into + the Level N RA's RC from being re-introduced into the Level N+1 + RA's RC, and + + - prevent information propagated from a Level N-1 RA's RC into + the Level N RA's RC from being re-introduced into the Level N-1 + RA's RC. + + The routing protocol SHALL differentiate the routing information + originated at a given-level RA from derived routing information + (received from external RAs), even when this information is + forwarded by another RC at the same level. This is a necessary + condition to be fulfilled by routing protocols to be loop free. + + 3. Method of Communication + + Two approaches exist for communication between Level N and N+1: + + - The first approach places an instance of a Level N routing + function and an instance of a Level N+1 routing function in the + same system. The communications interface is within a single + system and is thus not an open interface subject to + standardization. However, information re-advertisement or + leaking MUST be performed in a consistent manner to ensure + interoperability and basic routing protocol correctness (e.g., + cost/metric value). + + + +Brungard, Ed. Informational [Page 7] + +RFC 4258 GMPLS Routing for ASON November 2005 + + + - The second approach places the Level N routing function on a + separate system from the Level N+1 routing function. In this + case, a communication interface must be used between the + systems containing the routing functions for different levels. + This communication interface and mechanisms are outside the + scope of this document. + +3.3. Configuration + +3.3.1. Configuring the Multi-Level Hierarchy + + The RC MUST support static (i.e., operator assisted) and MAY support + automated configuration of the information describing its + relationship to its parent and its child within the hierarchical + structure (including RA ID and RC ID). When applied recursively, the + whole hierarchy is thus configured. + +3.3.2. Configuring RC Adjacencies + + The RC MUST support static (i.e., operator assisted) and MAY support + automated configuration of the information describing its associated + adjacencies to other RCs within an RA. The routing protocol SHOULD + support all the types of RC adjacencies described in Section 9 of + [G.7715]. The latter includes congruent topology (with distributed + RC) and hubbed topology (e.g., note that the latter does not + automatically imply a designated RC). + +3.4. Evolution + + The containment relationships of RAs may change, motivated by events + such as mergers, acquisitions, and divestitures. + + The routing protocol SHOULD be capable of supporting architectural + evolution in terms of the number of hierarchical levels of RAs, as + well as the aggregation and segmentation of RAs. RA ID uniqueness + within an administrative domain may facilitate these operations. The + routing protocol is not expected to automatically initiate and/or + execute these operations. Reconfiguration of the RA hierarchy may + not disrupt calls in progress, though calls being set up may fail to + complete, and the call setup service may be unavailable during + reconfiguration actions. + +3.5. Routing Attributes + + Routing for transport networks is performed on a per-layer basis, + where the routing paradigms MAY differ among layers and within a + layer. Not all equipment supports the same set of transport layers + or the same degree of connection flexibility at any given layer. A + + + +Brungard, Ed. Informational [Page 8] + +RFC 4258 GMPLS Routing for ASON November 2005 + + + server layer trail may support various clients, involving different + adaptation functions. In addition, equipment may support variable + adaptation functionality, whereby a single server layer trail + dynamically supports different multiplexing structures. As a result, + routing information MAY include layer-specific, layer-independent, + and client/server adaptation information. + +3.5.1. Taxonomy of Routing Attributes + + Attributes can be organized according to the following categories: + + - Node related or link related + + - Provisioned, negotiated, or automatically configured + + - Inherited or layer specific (client layers can inherit some + attributes from the server layer, while other attributes such as + Link Capacity are specified by layer) + + (Component) link attributes MAY be statically or automatically + configured for each transport network layer. This may lead to + unnecessary repetition. Hence, the inheritance property of + attributes MAY also be used to optimize the configuration process. + + ASON uses the term SubNetwork Point (SNP) for the control plane + representation of a transport plane resource. The control plane + representation and transport plane topology are NOT assumed to be + congruent; the control plane representation SHALL not be restricted + by the physical topology. The relational grouping of SNPs for + routing is termed an SNP Pool (SNPP). The routing function + understands topology in terms of SNPP links. Grouping MAY be based + on different link attributes (e.g., SRLG information, link weight, + etc). + + Two RAs may be linked by one or more SNPP links. Multiple SNPP links + may be required when component links are not equivalent for routing + purposes with respect to the RAs to which they are attached, to the + containing RA, or when smaller groupings are required. + +3.5.2. Commonly Advertised Information + + Advertisements MAY contain the following common set of information + regardless of whether they are link or node related: + + - RA ID of the RA to which the advertisement is bounded + + - RC ID of the entity generating the advertisement + + + + +Brungard, Ed. Informational [Page 9] + +RFC 4258 GMPLS Routing for ASON November 2005 + + + - Information to uniquely identify advertisements + + - Information to determine whether an advertisement has been updated + + - Information to indicate when an advertisement has been derived + from a different level RA + +3.5.3. Node Attributes + + All nodes belong to an RA; hence, the RA ID can be considered an + attribute of all nodes. Given that no distinction is made between + abstract nodes and those that cannot be decomposed any further, the + same attributes MAY be used for their advertisement. In the + following tables, Capability refers to the level of support required + in the realization of a link state routing protocol, whereas Usage + refers to the degree of operational control that SHOULD be available + to the operator. + + The following Node Attributes are defined: + + Attribute Capability Usage + ----------- ----------- --------- + Node ID REQUIRED REQUIRED + Reachability REQUIRED OPTIONAL + + Table 1. Node Attributes + + Reachability information describes the set of endpoints that are + reachable by the associated node. It MAY be advertised as a set of + associated external (e.g., User Network Interface (UNI)) + address/address prefixes or a set of associated SNPP link IDs/SNPP ID + prefixes, the selection of which MUST be consistent within the + applicable scope. These are control plane identifiers; the formats + of these identifiers in a protocol realization are implementation + specific and outside the scope of this document. + + Note: No distinction is made between nodes that may have further + internal details (i.e., abstract nodes) and those that cannot be + decomposed any further. Hence, the attributes of a node are not + considered as only single-switch attributes but MAY apply to a node + at a higher level of the hierarchy that represents a subnetwork. + + + + + + + + + + +Brungard, Ed. Informational [Page 10] + +RFC 4258 GMPLS Routing for ASON November 2005 + + +3.5.4. Link Attributes + + The following Link Attributes are defined: + + Link Attribute Capability Usage + --------------- ----------- --------- + Local SNPP link ID REQUIRED REQUIRED + Remote SNPP link ID REQUIRED REQUIRED + Layer Specific Characteristics see Table 3 + + Table 2. Link Attributes + + The SNPP link ID MUST be sufficient to uniquely identify (within the + Node ID scope) the corresponding transport plane resource, taking + into account the separation of data and control planes (see Section + 3.5.1; the control plane representation and transport plane topology + are not assumed to be congruent). The SNPP link ID format is routing + protocol specific. + + Note: When the remote end of an SNPP link is located outside of the + RA, the remote SNPP link ID is OPTIONAL. + + The following link characteristic attributes are defined: + + - Signal Type: This identifies the characteristic information of the + layer network. + + - Link Weight: This is the metric indicating the relative + desirability of a particular link over another, e.g., during path + computation. + + - Resource Class: This corresponds to the set of administrative + groups assigned by the operator to this link. A link MAY belong + to zero, one, or more administrative groups. + + - Local Connection Types: This attribute identifies whether the + local SNP represents a Termination Connection Point (CP), a + Connection Point (CP), or can be flexibly configured as a TCP. + + - Link Capacity: This provides the sum of the available and + potential bandwidth capacity for a particular network transport + layer. Other capacity measures MAY be further considered. + + - Link Availability: This represents the survivability capability + such as the protection type associated with the link. + + - Diversity Support: This represents diversity information such as + the SRLG information associated with the link. + + + +Brungard, Ed. Informational [Page 11] + +RFC 4258 GMPLS Routing for ASON November 2005 + + + - Local Adaptation Support: This indicates the set of client layer + adaptations supported by the TCP associated with the local SNPP. + This is applicable only when the local SNP represents a TCP or can + be flexibly configured as a TCP. + + Link Characteristics Capability Usage + ----------------------- ---------- --------- + Signal Type REQUIRED OPTIONAL + Link Weight REQUIRED OPTIONAL + Resource Class REQUIRED OPTIONAL + Local Connection Types REQUIRED OPTIONAL + Link Capacity REQUIRED OPTIONAL + Link Availability OPTIONAL OPTIONAL + Diversity Support OPTIONAL OPTIONAL + Local Adaptation Support OPTIONAL OPTIONAL + + Table 3. Link Characteristics + + Note: Separate advertisements of layer-specific attributes MAY be + chosen. However, this may lead to unnecessary duplication. This can + be avoided using the inheritance property, so that the attributes + derivable from the local adaptation information do not need to be + advertised. Thus, an optimization MAY be used when several layers + are present by indicating when an attribute is inheritable from a + server layer. + +4. Security Considerations + + The ASON routing protocol MUST deliver the operational security + objectives where required. The overall security objectives (defined + in ITU-T Recommendation [M.3016]) of confidentiality, integrity, and + accountability may take on varying levels of importance. These + objectives do not necessarily imply requirements on the routing + protocol itself, and MAY be met by other established means. + + Note: A threat analysis of a proposed routing protocol SHOULD address + masquerade, eavesdropping, unauthorized access, loss or corruption of + information (including replay attacks), repudiation, forgery, and + denial of service attacks. + +5. Conclusions + + The description of the ASON routing architecture and components is + provided in terms of routing functionality. This description is only + conceptual: no physical partitioning of these functions is implied. + + + + + + +Brungard, Ed. Informational [Page 12] + +RFC 4258 GMPLS Routing for ASON November 2005 + + + In summary, the ASON routing architecture assumes: + + - A network is subdivided into ASON RAs, which MAY support multiple + routing protocols; no one-to-one relationship SHALL be assumed. + + - Routing Controllers (RCs) provide for the exchange of routing + information (primitives) for the RA. The RC is protocol + independent and MAY be realized by multiple, different protocol + controllers within an RA. The routing information exchanged + between RCs SHALL be subject to policy constraints imposed at + reference points (External- and Internal-NNI). + + - In a multi-level RA hierarchy based on containment, communication + between RCs of different RAs happens only when there is a + parent/child relationship between the RAs. RCs of child RAs never + communicate with the RCs of other child RAs. There SHOULD not be + any dependencies on the different routing protocols used within a + child RA and that of its parent. The routing information + exchanged within the parent RA SHALL be independent of both the + routing protocol operating within a child RA and any control + distribution choice(s), e.g., centralized, fully distributed. + + - For an RA, the set of RCs is referred to as an ASON routing + (control) domain. The routing information exchanged between + routing domains (inter-RA, i.e., inter-domain) SHALL be + independent of both the intra-domain routing protocol(s) and the + intra-domain control distribution choice(s), e.g., centralized, + fully distributed. RCs bounded to different RA levels MAY be + collocated within the same physical element or physically + distributed. + + - The routing adjacency topology (i.e., the associated PC + connectivity topology) and the transport network topology SHALL + NOT be assumed to be congruent. + + - The routing topology SHALL support multiple links between nodes + and RAs. + + In summary, the following functionality is expected from GMPLS + routing to instantiate the ASON hierarchical routing architecture + realization (see [G.7715] and [G.7715.1]): + + - RAs SHALL be uniquely identifiable within a carrier's network, + each having a unique RA ID within the carrier's network. + + - Within an RA (one level), the routing protocol SHALL support + dissemination of hierarchical routing information (including + summarized routing information for other levels) in support of an + + + +Brungard, Ed. Informational [Page 13] + +RFC 4258 GMPLS Routing for ASON November 2005 + + + architecture of multiple hierarchical levels of RAs; the number of + hierarchical RA levels to be supported by a routing protocol is + implementation specific. + + - The routing protocol SHALL support routing information based on a + common set of information elements as defined in [G.7715] and + [G.7715.1], divided between attributes pertaining to links and + abstract nodes (each representing either a subnetwork or simply a + node). [G.7715] recognizes that the manner in which the routing + information is represented and exchanged will vary with the + routing protocol used. + + - The routing protocol SHALL converge such that the distributed RDBs + become synchronized after a period of time. + + To support hierarchical routing information dissemination within an + RA, the routing protocol MUST deliver: + + - Processing of routing information exchanged between adjacent + levels of the hierarchy (i.e., Level N+1 and N) including + reachability and, upon policy, decision summarized topology + information. + + - Self-consistent information at the receiving level resulting from + any transformation (filter, summarize, etc.) and forwarding of + information from one RC to RC(s) at different levels when multiple + RCs are bound to a single RA. + + - A mechanism to prevent the re-introduction of information + propagated into the Level N RA's RC back to the adjacent level + RA's RC from which this information has been initially received. + + In order to support operator-assisted changes in the containment + relationships of RAs, the routing protocol SHALL support evolution in + terms of the number of hierarchical levels of RAs. For example: + support of non-disruptive operations such as adding and removing RAs + at the top/bottom of the hierarchy, adding or removing a hierarchical + level of RAs in or from the middle of the hierarchy, as well as + aggregation and segmentation of RAs. The number of hierarchical + levels to be supported is routing protocol specific and reflects a + containment relationship; e.g., an RA insertion involves supporting a + different routing protocol domain in a portion of the network. + + Reachability information (see Section 3.5.3) of the set of endpoints + reachable by a node may be advertised either as a set of UNI + Transport Resource addresses/address prefixes or a set of associated + SNPP link IDs/SNPP link ID prefixes, assigned and selected + consistently in their applicability scope. The formats of the + + + +Brungard, Ed. Informational [Page 14] + +RFC 4258 GMPLS Routing for ASON November 2005 + + + control plane identifiers in a protocol realization are + implementation specific. Use of a routing protocol within an RA + should not restrict the choice of routing protocols for use in other + RAs (child or parent). + + As ASON does not restrict the control plane architecture choice used, + either a collocated architecture or a physically separated + architecture may be used. A collection of links and nodes such as a + subnetwork or RA MUST be able to represent itself to the wider + network as a single logical entity with only its external links + visible to the topology database. + +6. Contributors + + This document is the result of the CCAMP Working Group ASON Routing + Requirements design team joint effort. The following are the design + team member authors who contributed to the present document: + + Wesam Alanqar (Sprint) + Deborah Brungard (ATT) + David Meyer (Cisco Systems) + Lyndon Ong (Ciena) + Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel) + Jonathan Sadler (Tellabs) + Stephen Shew (Nortel) + +7. Acknowledgements + + The authors would like to thank Kireeti Kompella for having initiated + the proposal of an ASON Routing Requirement Design Team and the ITU-T + SG15/Q14 for their careful review and input. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Brungard, Ed. Informational [Page 15] + +RFC 4258 GMPLS Routing for ASON November 2005 + + +8. References + +8.1. Normative References + + [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate + Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. + +8.2. Informative References + + For information on the availability of the following documents, + please see http://www.itu.int: + + [G.707] ITU-T Rec. G.707/Y.1322, "Network Node Interface for the + Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH)", December 2003. + + [G.709] ITU-T Rec. G.709/Y.1331, "Interfaces for the Optical + Transport Network (OTN)", March 2003. + + [G.7715] ITU-T Rec. G.7715/Y.1306, "Architecture and Requirements + for the Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)", + June 2002. + + [G.7715.1] ITU-T Draft Rec. G.7715.1/Y.1706.1, "ASON Routing + Architecture and Requirements for Link State Protocols", + November 2003. + + [G.805] ITU-T Rec. G.805, "Generic Functional Architecture of + Transport Networks", March 2000. + + [G.8080] ITU-T Rec. G.8080/Y.1304, "Architecture for the + Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)", November + 2001 (and Revision, January 2003). + + [M.3016] ITU-T Rec. M.3016.0, "Security for the Management Plane: + Overview", May 2005. + + [T1.105] ANSI T1.105, "Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) - Basic + Description including Multiplex Structure, Rates, and + Formats", 2001. + + + + + + + + + + + + +Brungard, Ed. Informational [Page 16] + +RFC 4258 GMPLS Routing for ASON November 2005 + + +Appendix 1: ASON Terminology + + This document makes use of the following terms: + + Administrative domain (see Recommendation [G.805]): For the purposes + of [G.7715.1], an administrative domain represents the extent of + resources that belong to a single player such as a network operator, + a service provider, or an end-user. Administrative domains of + different players do not overlap amongst themselves. + + Adaptation function (see Recommendation [G.805]): A "transport + processing function" that processes the client layer information for + transfer over a server layer trail. + + Client/Server relationship: The association between layer networks + that is performed by an "adaptation" function to allow the link + connection in the client layer network to be supported by a trail in + the server layer network. + + Control plane: Performs the call control and connection control + functions. Through signaling, the control plane sets up and releases + connections and may restore a connection in case of a failure. + + (Control) Domain: Represents a collection of (control) entities that + are grouped for a particular purpose. The control plane is + subdivided into domains matching administrative domains. Within an + administrative domain, further subdivisions of the control plane are + recursively applied. A routing control domain is an abstract entity + that hides the details of the RC distribution. + + External NNI (E-NNI): Interfaces are located between protocol + controllers between control domains. + + Internal NNI (I-NNI): Interfaces are located between protocol + controllers within control domains. + + Link (see Recommendation [G.805]): A "topological component" that + describes a fixed relationship between a "subnetwork" or "access + group" and another "subnetwork" or "access group". Links are not + limited to being provided by a single server trail. + + Management plane: Performs management functions for the transport + plane, the control plane, and the system as a whole. It also + provides coordination between all the planes. The following + management functional areas are performed in the management plane: + performance, fault, configuration, accounting, and security + management. + + + + +Brungard, Ed. Informational [Page 17] + +RFC 4258 GMPLS Routing for ASON November 2005 + + + Management domain (see Recommendation [G.805]): A management domain + defines a collection of managed objects that are grouped to meet + organizational requirements according to geography, technology, + policy, or other structure, and for a number of functional areas such + as configuration, security, (FCAPS), for the purpose of providing + control in a consistent manner. Management domains can be disjoint, + contained, or overlapping. As such, the resources within an + administrative domain can be distributed into several possible + overlapping management domains. The same resource can therefore + belong to several management domains simultaneously, but a management + domain shall not cross the border of an administrative domain. + + Multiplexing (see Recommendation [G.805]): Multiplexing techniques + are used to combine client layer signals. The many-to-one + relationship represents the case of several link connections of + client layer networks supported by one server layer trail at the same + time. + + Subnetwork Point (SNP): The SNP is a control plane abstraction that + represents an actual or potential transport plane resource. SNPs (in + different subnetwork partitions) may represent the same transport + resource. A one-to-one correspondence should not be assumed. + + Subnetwork Point Pool (SNPP): A set of SNPs that are grouped together + for the purposes of routing. + + Termination Connection Point (TCP): A TCP represents the output of a + Trail Termination function or the input to a Trail Termination Sink + function. + + Trail (see Recommendation [G.805]): A "transport entity" that + consists of an associated pair of "unidirectional trails" capable of + simultaneously transferring information in opposite directions + between their respective inputs and outputs. + + Transport plane: Provides bi-directional or unidirectional transfer + of user information, from one location to another. It can also + provide transfer of some control and network management information. + The transport plane is layered; it is equivalent to the Transport + Network defined in the [G.805] Recommendation. + + User Network Interface (UNI): Interfaces are located between protocol + controllers between a user and a control domain. Note: there is no + routing function associated with a UNI reference point. + + Variable adaptation function: A single server layer trail may + dynamically support different multiplexing structures, i.e., link + connections for multiple client layer networks. + + + +Brungard, Ed. Informational [Page 18] + +RFC 4258 GMPLS Routing for ASON November 2005 + + +Appendix 2: ASON Routing Terminology + + This document makes use of the following terms: + + Routing Area (RA): An RA represents a partition of the data plane, + and its identifier is used within the control plane as the + representation of this partition. Per [G.8080], an RA is defined by + a set of subnetworks, the links that interconnect them, and the + interfaces representing the ends of the links exiting that RA. An RA + may contain smaller RAs inter-connected by links. The limit of + subdivision results in an RA that contains two subnetworks + interconnected by a single link. + + Routing Database (RDB): Repository for the local topology, network + topology, reachability, and other routing information that is updated + as part of the routing information exchange and may additionally + contain information that is configured. The RDB may contain routing + information for more than one Routing Area (RA). + + Routing Components: ASON routing architecture functions. These + functions can be classified as protocol independent (Link Resource + Manager or LRM, Routing Controller or RC) and protocol specific + (Protocol Controller or PC). + + Routing Controller (RC): Handles (abstract) information needed for + routing and the routing information exchange with peering RCs by + operating on the RDB. The RC has access to a view of the RDB. The + RC is protocol independent. + + Note: Since the RDB may contain routing information pertaining to + multiple RAs (and possibly to multiple layer networks), the RCs + accessing the RDB may share the routing information. + + Link Resource Manager (LRM): Supplies all the relevant component and + Traffic Engineering (TE) link information to the RC. It informs the + RC about any state changes of the link resources it controls. + + Protocol Controller (PC): Handles protocol-specific message exchanges + according to the reference point over which the information is + exchanged (e.g., E-NNI, I-NNI), and internal exchanges with the RC. + The PC function is protocol dependent. + + + + + + + + + + +Brungard, Ed. Informational [Page 19] + +RFC 4258 GMPLS Routing for ASON November 2005 + + +Authors' Addresses + + Wesam Alanqar + Sprint + + EMail: wesam.alanqar@mail.sprint.com + + + Deborah Brungard, Ed. + AT&T + Rm. D1-3C22 - 200 S. Laurel Ave. + Middletown, NJ 07748, USA + + Phone: +1 732 4201573 + EMail: dbrungard@att.com + + + David Meyer + Cisco Systems + + EMail: dmm@1-4-5.net + + + Lyndon Ong + Ciena Corporation + 5965 Silver Creek Valley Rd, + San Jose, CA 95128, USA + + Phone: +1 408 8347894 + EMail: lyong@ciena.com + + + Dimitri Papadimitriou + Alcatel + Francis Wellensplein 1, + B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium + + Phone: +32 3 2408491 + EMail: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be + + + Jonathan Sadler + 1415 W. Diehl Rd + Naperville, IL 60563 + + EMail: jonathan.sadler@tellabs.com + + + + + +Brungard, Ed. Informational [Page 20] + +RFC 4258 GMPLS Routing for ASON November 2005 + + + Stephen Shew + Nortel Networks + PO Box 3511 Station C + Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA K1Y 4H7 + + Phone: +1 613 7632462 + EMail: sdshew@nortelnetworks.com + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Brungard, Ed. Informational [Page 21] + +RFC 4258 GMPLS Routing for ASON November 2005 + + +Full Copyright Statement + + Copyright (C) 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. + + + + + + + +Brungard, Ed. Informational [Page 22] + -- cgit v1.2.3