tech-invite   World Map     

IETF     RFCs     Groups     SIP     ABNFs    |    3GPP     Specs     Glossaries     Architecture     IMS     UICC    |    search     info

RFC 7580

Proposed STD
Pages: 12
Top     in Index     Prev     Next
in Group Index     Prev in Group     Next in Group     Group: CCAMP

OSPF-TE Extensions for General Network Element Constraints

 


Top       ToC       Page 1 
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                          F. Zhang
Request for Comments: 7580                                        Y. Lee
Category: Standards Track                                         J. Han
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                   Huawei
                                                            G. Bernstein
                                                       Grotto Networking
                                                                   Y. Xu
                                                                    CATR
                                                               June 2015


       OSPF-TE Extensions for General Network Element Constraints

Abstract

   Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) can be used to
   control a wide variety of technologies including packet switching
   (e.g., MPLS), time division (e.g., Synchronous Optical Network /
   Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SONET/SDH) and Optical Transport
   Network (OTN)), wavelength (lambdas), and spatial switching (e.g.,
   incoming port or fiber to outgoing port or fiber).  In some of these
   technologies, network elements and links may impose additional
   routing constraints such as asymmetric switch connectivity, non-
   local label assignment, and label range limitations on links.  This
   document describes Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) routing protocol
   extensions to support these kinds of constraints under the control of
   GMPLS.

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 5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7580.

Page 2 
Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 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
   (http://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. Node Information ................................................3
      2.1. Connectivity Matrix ........................................4
   3. Link Information ................................................4
      3.1. Port Label Restrictions ....................................5
   4. Routing Procedures ..............................................5
   5. Scalability and Timeliness ......................................6
      5.1. Different Sub-TLVs into Multiple LSAs ......................6
      5.2. Decomposing a Connectivity Matrix into Multiple Matrices ...6
   6. Security Considerations .........................................7
   7. Manageability ...................................................7
   8. IANA Considerations .............................................8
      8.1. Node Information ...........................................8
      8.2. Link Information ...........................................8
   9. References ......................................................9
      9.1. Normative References .......................................9
      9.2. Informative References ....................................10
   Acknowledgments ...................................................11
   Contributors ......................................................11
   Authors' Addresses ................................................12

Top      ToC       Page 3 
1.  Introduction

   Some data-plane technologies that require the use of a GMPLS control
   plane impose additional constraints on switching capability and label
   assignment.  In addition, some of these technologies should be
   capable of performing non-local label assignment based on the nature
   of the technology, e.g., wavelength continuity constraint in
   Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs) [RFC6163].  Such
   constraints can lead to the requirement for link-by-link label
   availability in path computation and label assignment.

   [RFC7579] provides efficient encodings of information needed by the
   routing and label assignment process in technologies such as WSON.
   These encodings are potentially applicable to a wider range of
   technologies as well.  The encoding provided in [RFC7579] is
   protocol-neutral and can be used in routing, signaling, and/or Path
   Computation Element communication protocol extensions.

   This document defines extensions to the OSPF routing protocol based
   on [RFC7579] to enhance the Traffic Engineering (TE) properties of
   GMPLS TE that are defined in [RFC3630], [RFC4202], and [RFC4203].
   The enhancements to the TE properties of GMPLS TE links can be
   advertised in OSPF-TE Link State Advertisements (LSAs).  The TE LSA,
   which is an opaque LSA with area flooding scope [RFC3630], has only
   one top-level Type-Length-Value (TLV) triplet and has one or more
   nested sub-TLVs for extensibility.  The top-level TLV can take one of
   three values: Router Address [RFC3630], Link [RFC3630], or Node
   Attribute [RFC5786].  In this document, we enhance the sub-TLVs for
   the Link TLV in support of the general network element constraints
   under the control of GMPLS.

   The detailed encoding of OSPF extensions is not defined in this
   document.  [RFC7579] provides encoding details.

1.1.  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].

2.  Node Information

   According to [RFC7579], the additional node information representing
   node switching asymmetry constraints includes device type and
   connectivity matrix.  Except for the device type, which is defined in
   [RFC7579], the other pieces of information are defined in this
   document.

Top      ToC       Page 4 
   Per [RFC7579], this document defines the Connectivity Matrix sub-TLV
   of the Node Attribute TLV defined in [RFC5786].  The new sub-TLV has
   Type 14.

   Depending on the control-plane implementation being used, the
   Connectivity Matrix sub-TLV may be optional in some specific
   technologies, e.g., WSON networks.  Usually, for example, in WSON
   networks, the Connectivity Matrix sub-TLV may be advertised in the
   LSAs since WSON switches are currently asymmetric.  If no
   Connectivity Matrix sub-TLV is included, it is assumed that the
   switches support symmetric switching.

2.1.  Connectivity Matrix

   If the switching devices supporting certain data-plane technology are
   asymmetric, it is necessary to identify which input ports and labels
   can be switched to some specific labels on a specific output port.

   The connectivity matrix, which can represent either the potential
   connectivity matrix for asymmetric switches (e.g., Reconfigurable
   Optical Add/Drop Multiplexers (ROADMs) and such) or fixed
   connectivity for an asymmetric device such as a multiplexer as
   defined in [RFC7446], is used to identify these restrictions.

   The Connectivity Matrix is a sub-TLV of the Node Attribute TLV.  The
   length is the length of the value field in octets.  The meaning and
   format of this sub-TLV value field are defined in Section 2.1 of
   [RFC7579].  One sub-TLV contains one matrix.  The Connectivity Matrix
   sub-TLV may occur more than once to contain multiple matrices within
   the Node Attribute TLV.  In addition, a large connectivity matrix can
   be decomposed into smaller sub-matrices for transmission in multiple
   LSAs as described in Section 5.

3.  Link Information

   The most common link sub-TLVs nested in the top-level Link TLV are
   already defined in [RFC3630] and [RFC4203].  For example, Link ID,
   Administrative Group, Interface Switching Capability Descriptor
   (ISCD), Link Protection Type, Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG), and
   Traffic Engineering Metric are among the typical link sub-TLVs.

   Per [RFC7579], this document defines the Port Label Restrictions sub-
   TLV of the Link TLV defined in [RFC3630].  The new sub-TLV has Type
   34.

Top      ToC       Page 5 
   Generally, all the sub-TLVs above are optional, depending on control-
   plane implementations being used.  The Port Label Restrictions sub-
   TLV will not be advertised when there are no restrictions on label
   assignment.

3.1.  Port Label Restrictions

   Port label restrictions describe the label restrictions that the
   network element (node) and link may impose on a port.  These
   restrictions represent what labels may or may not be used on a link
   and are intended to be relatively static.  For increased modeling
   flexibility, port label restrictions may be specified relative to the
   port in general or to a specific connectivity matrix.

   For example, the port label restrictions describe the wavelength
   restrictions that the link and various optical devices such as
   Optical Cross-Connects (OXCs), ROADMs, and waveband multiplexers may
   impose on a port in WSON.  These restrictions represent which
   wavelengths may or may not be used on a link and are relatively
   static.  Detailed information about port label restrictions is
   provided in [RFC7446].

   The Port Label Restrictions sub-TLV is a sub-TLV of the Link TLV.
   The length is the length of value field in octets.  The meaning and
   format of this sub-TLV value field are defined in Section 2.2 of
   [RFC7579].  The Port Label Restrictions sub-TLV may occur more than
   once to specify a complex port constraint within the Link TLV.

4.  Routing Procedures

   All sub-TLVs are nested in top-level TLV(s) and contained in Opaque
   LSAs.  The flooding rules of Opaque LSAs are specified in [RFC2328],
   [RFC5250], [RFC3630], and [RFC4203].

   Considering the routing scalability issues in some cases, the routing
   protocol should be capable of supporting the separation of dynamic
   information from relatively static information to avoid unnecessary
   updates of static information when dynamic information is changed.  A
   standards-compliant approach is to separate the dynamic information
   sub-TLVs from the static information sub-TLVs, each nested in a
   separate top-level TLV (see [RFC3630] and [RFC5786]), and advertise
   them in the separate OSPF-TE LSAs.

   For node information, since the connectivity matrix information is
   static, the LSA containing the Node Attribute TLV can be updated with
   a lower frequency to avoid unnecessary updates.

Top      ToC       Page 6 
   For link information, a mechanism MAY be applied such that static
   information and dynamic information of one TE link are contained in
   separate Opaque LSAs.  For example, the Port Label Restrictions sub-
   TLV could be nested in separate top-level Link TLVs and advertised in
   the separate LSAs.

   As with other TE information, an implementation typically takes
   measures to avoid rapid and frequent updates of routing information
   that could cause the routing network to become swamped.  See
   Section 3 of [RFC3630] for related details.

5.  Scalability and Timeliness

   This document defines two sub-TLVs for describing generic routing
   constraints.  The examples given in [RFC7579] show that very large
   systems, in terms of label count or ports, can be very efficiently
   encoded.  However, because there has been concern expressed that some
   possible systems may produce LSAs that exceed the IP Maximum
   Transmission Unit (MTU), methods should be given to allow for the
   splitting of general constraint LSAs into smaller LSAs that are under
   the MTU limit.  This section presents a set of techniques that can be
   used for this purpose.

5.1.  Different Sub-TLVs into Multiple LSAs

   Two sub-TLVs are defined in this document:

   1.  Connectivity Matrix (carried in the Node Attribute TLV)

   2.  Port Label Restrictions (carried in the Link TLV)

   The Connectivity Matrix sub-TLV can be carried in the Node Attribute
   TLV (as defined in [RFC5786]), whereas the Port Label Restrictions
   sub-TLV can be carried in a Link TLV, of which there can be at most
   one in an LSA (as defined in [RFC3630]).  Note that the port label
   restrictions are relatively static, i.e., only would change with
   hardware changes or significant system reconfiguration.

5.2.  Decomposing a Connectivity Matrix into Multiple Matrices

   In the highly unlikely event that a Connectivity Matrix sub-TLV by
   itself would result in an LSA exceeding the MTU, a single large
   matrix can be decomposed into sub-matrices.  Per [RFC7579], a
   connectivity matrix just consists of pairs of input and output ports
   that can reach each other; hence, this decomposition would be
   straightforward.  Each of these sub-matrices would get a unique
   matrix identifier per [RFC7579].

Top      ToC       Page 7 
   From the point of view of a path computation process, prior to
   receiving an LSA with a Connectivity Matrix sub-TLV, no connectivity
   restrictions are assumed, i.e., the standard GMPLS assumption of any
   port to any port reachability holds.  Once a Connectivity Matrix sub-
   TLV is received, path computation would know that connectivity is
   restricted and use the information from all Connectivity Matrix sub-
   TLVs received to understand the complete connectivity potential of
   the system.  Prior to receiving any Connectivity Matrix sub-TLVs,
   path computation may compute a path through the system when, in fact,
   no path exists.  In between the reception of an additional
   Connectivity Matrix sub-TLV, path computation may not be able to find
   a path through the system when one actually exists.  Both cases are
   currently encountered and handled with existing GMPLS mechanisms.
   Due to the reliability mechanisms in OSPF, the phenomena of late or
   missing Connectivity Matrix sub-TLVs would be relatively rare.

   In the case where the new sub-TLVs or their attendant encodings are
   malformed, the proper action would be to log the problem and ignore
   just the sub-TLVs in GMPLS path computations rather than ignoring the
   entire LSA.

6.  Security Considerations

   This document does not introduce any further security issues other
   than those discussed in [RFC3630], [RFC4203], and [RFC5250].

   For general security aspects relevant to GMPLS-controlled networks,
   please refer to [RFC5920].

7.  Manageability

   No existing management tools handle the additional TE parameters as
   defined in this document and distributed in OSPF-TE.  The existing
   MIB module contained in [RFC6825] allows the TE information
   distributed by OSPF-TE to be read from a network node; this MIB
   module could be augmented (possibly by a sparse augmentation) to
   report this new information.

   The current environment in the IETF favors the Network Configuration
   Protocol (NETCONF) [RFC6241] and YANG [RFC6020] over SNMP and MIB
   modules.  Work is in progress in the TEAS working group to develop a
   YANG module to represent the generic TE information that may be
   present in a Traffic Engineering Database (TED).  This model may be
   extended to handle the additional information described in this
   document to allow that information to be read from network devices or
   exchanged between consumers of the TED.  Furthermore, links state

Top      ToC       Page 8 
   export using BGP [BGP-LS] enables the export of TE information from a
   network using BGP.  Work could realistically be done to extend BGP-LS
   to also carry the information defined in this document.

   It is not envisaged that the extensions defined in this document will
   place substantial additional requirements on Operations,
   Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) mechanisms currently used to
   diagnose and debug OSPF systems.  However, tools that examine the
   contents of opaque LSAs will need to be enhanced to handle these new
   sub-TLVs.

8.  IANA Considerations

   IANA has allocated new sub-TLVs as defined in Sections 2 and 3 as
   follows:

8.1.  Node Information

   IANA maintains the "Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) Traffic
   Engineering TLVs" registry with a sub-registry called "Types for sub-
   TLVs of TE Node Attribute TLV (Value 5)".  IANA has assigned a new
   code point as follows:

         Type   |  Sub-TLV                      |  Reference
         -------+-------------------------------+------------
          14    |  Connectivity Matrix          |  [RFC7580]

8.2.  Link Information

   IANA maintains the "Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) Traffic
   Engineering TLVs" registry with a sub-registry called "Types for sub-
   TLVs of TE Link TLV (Value 2)".  IANA has assigned a new code point
   as follows:

         Type   |  Sub-TLV                      |  Reference
         -------+-------------------------------+------------
           34   |  Port Label Restrictions      |  [RFC7580]

Top      ToC       Page 9 
9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC2328]  Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.

   [RFC3630]  Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
              (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3630>.

   [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, <http://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,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4203>.

   [RFC5250]  Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Zinin, A., and R. Coltun, "The
              OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 5250, DOI 10.17487/RFC5250,
              July 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5250>.

   [RFC5786]  Aggarwal, R. and K. Kompella, "Advertising a Router's
              Local Addresses in OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE)
              Extensions", RFC 5786, DOI 10.17487/RFC5786, March 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5786>.

   [RFC7579]  Bernstein, G., Ed., Lee, Y., Ed., Li, D., Imajuku, W., and
              J. Han, "General Network Element Constraint Encoding for
              GMPLS-Controlled Networks", RFC 7579,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7579, June 2015,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7579>.

Top      ToC       Page 10 
9.2.  Informative References

   [BGP-LS]   Gredler, H., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and S.
              Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and TE
              Information using BGP", Work in Progress,
              draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution-11, June 2015.

   [RFC6020]  Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
              the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>.

   [RFC6163]  Lee, Y., Ed., Bernstein, G., Ed., and W. Imajuku,
              "Framework for GMPLS and Path Computation Element (PCE)
              Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs)",
              RFC 6163, DOI 10.17487/RFC6163, April 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6163>.

   [RFC6241]  Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
              and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
              (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.

   [RFC6825]  Miyazawa, M., Otani, T., Kumaki, K., and T. Nadeau,
              "Traffic Engineering Database Management Information Base
              in Support of MPLS-TE/GMPLS", RFC 6825,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6825, January 2013,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6825>.

   [RFC7446]  Lee, Y., Ed., Bernstein, G., Ed., Li, D., and W. Imajuku,
              "Routing and Wavelength Assignment Information Model for
              Wavelength Switched Optical Networks", RFC 7446,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7446, February 2015,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7446>.

   [RFC5920]  Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
              Networks", RFC 5920, DOI 10.17487/RFC5920, July 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5920>.

Top      ToC       Page 11 
Acknowledgments

   We thank Ming Chen and Yabin Ye from DICONNET Project who provided
   valuable information for this document.

Contributors

   Guoying Zhang
   China Academy of Telecommunication Research of MII
   11 Yue Tan Nan Jie
   Beijing
   China
   Phone: +86-10-68094272
   EMail: zhangguoying@mail.ritt.com.cn

   Dan Li
   Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
   F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base
   Bantian, Longgang District
   Shenzhen 518129
   China
   Phone: +86-755-28973237
   EMail: danli@huawei.com

   Ming Chen
   European Research Center
   Huawei Technologies
   Riesstr. 25, 80992
   Munchen
   Germany
   Phone: 0049-89158834072
   EMail: minc@huawei.com

   Yabin Ye
   European Research Center
   Huawei Technologies
   Riesstr. 25, 80992
   Munchen
   Germany
   Phone: 0049-89158834074
   EMail: yabin.ye@huawei.com

Top      ToC       Page 12 
Authors' Addresses

   Fatai Zhang
   Huawei Technologies
   F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base
   Bantian, Longgang District
   Shenzhen 518129
   China
   Phone: +86-755-28972912
   EMail: zhangfatai@huawei.com

   Young Lee
   Huawei Technologies
   5360 Legacy Drive, Building 3
   Plano, TX 75023
   United States
   Phone: (469)277-5838
   EMail: leeyoung@huawei.com

   Jianrui Han
   Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
   F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base
   Bantian, Longgang District
   Shenzhen 518129
   China
   Phone: +86-755-28977943
   EMail: hanjianrui@huawei.com

   Greg Bernstein
   Grotto Networking
   Fremont, CA
   United States
   Phone: (510) 573-2237
   EMail: gregb@grotto-networking.com

   Yunbin Xu
   China Academy of Telecommunication Research of MII
   11 Yue Tan Nan Jie
   Beijing
   China
   Phone: +86-10-68094134
   EMail: xuyunbin@mail.ritt.com.cn