tech-invite   World Map     

IETF     RFCs     Groups     SIP     ABNFs    |    3GPP     Specs     Gloss.     Arch.     IMS     UICC    |    Misc.    |    search     info

RFC 7688

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

GMPLS OSPF Enhancement for Signal and Network Element Compatibility for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks

 


Top       ToC       Page 1 
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                       Y. Lee, Ed.
Request for Comments: 7688                                        Huawei
Category: Standards Track                              G. Bernstein, Ed.
ISSN: 2070-1721                                        Grotto Networking
                                                           November 2015


  GMPLS OSPF Enhancement for Signal and Network Element Compatibility
                for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks

Abstract

   This document provides Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching
   (GMPLS) Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) routing enhancements to
   support signal compatibility constraints associated with Wavelength
   Switched Optical Network (WSON) elements.  These routing enhancements
   are applicable in common optical or hybrid electro-optical networks
   where not all the optical signals in the network are compatible with
   all network elements participating in the network.

   This compatibility constraint model is applicable to common optical
   or hybrid electro-optical systems such as optical-electronic-optical
   (OEO) switches, regenerators, and wavelength converters, since such
   systems can be limited to processing only certain types of WSON
   signals.

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/rfc7688.

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. The Optical Node Property TLV ...................................3
      2.1. Resource Block Information .................................4
      2.2. Resource Accessibility .....................................5
      2.3. Resource Wavelength Constraints ............................5
      2.4. Resource Block Pool State ..................................5
      2.5. Resource Block Shared Access Wavelength Availability .......5
   3. Interface Switching Capability Descriptor (ISCD) Format
      Extensions ......................................................5
      3.1. Switching Capability Specific Information (SCSI) ...........6
   4. WSON-Specific Scalability and Timeliness ........................7
   5. Security Considerations .........................................8
   6. IANA Considerations .............................................8
      6.1. Optical Node Property TLV ..................................8
           6.1.1. Optical Node Property Sub-TLV .......................8
      6.2. WSON-LSC Switching Type TLV ................................9
           6.2.1. WSON-LSC SCSI Sub-TLVs ..............................9
   7. References .....................................................10
      7.1. Normative References ......................................10
      7.2. Informative References ....................................10
   Authors' Addresses ................................................12

Top      ToC       Page 3 
1.  Introduction

   The documents [RFC6163], [RFC7446], and [RFC7581] explain how to
   extend the Wavelength Switched Optical Network (WSON) control plane
   to support both multiple WSON signal types and common hybrid electro-
   optical systems as well hybrid systems containing optical switching
   and electro-optical resources.  In WSON, not all the optical signals
   in the network are compatible with all network elements participating
   in the network.  Therefore, signal compatibility is an important
   constraint in path computation in a WSON.

   This document provides GMPLS OSPF routing enhancements to support
   signal compatibility constraints associated with general WSON network
   elements.  These routing enhancements are applicable in common
   optical or hybrid electro-optical networks where not all optical
   signals in the network are compatible with all network elements
   participating in the network.

   This compatibility constraint model is applicable to common optical
   or hybrid electro-optical systems such as OEO switches, regenerators,
   and wavelength converters, since such systems can be limited to
   processing only certain types of WSON signals.

   Related to this document is [RFC7580], which provides GMPLS OSPF
   routing enhancements to support the generic routing and label
   assignment process that can be applicable to a wider range of
   technologies beyond WSON.

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 [RFC2119].

2.  The Optical Node Property TLV

   [RFC3630] defines OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Link State
   Advertisement (LSA) using an opaque LSA.  This document adds a new
   top-level TLV for use in the OSPF TE LSA: the Optical Node Property
   TLV.  The Optical Node Property TLV describes a single node.  It is
   comprised of a set of optional sub-TLVs.  There are no ordering
   requirements for the sub-TLVs.

   When using the extensions defined in this document, at least one
   Optical Node Property TLV MUST be advertised in each LSA.  To allow
   for fine-grained changes in topology, more than one Optical Node
   Property TLV MAY be advertised in a single LSA.  Implementations MUST
   support receiving multiple Optical Node Property TLVs in an LSA.

Top      ToC       Page 4 
   The Optical Node Property TLV contains all WSON-specific node
   properties and signal compatibility constraints.  The detailed
   encodings of these properties are defined in [RFC7581].

   The following sub-TLVs of the Optical Node Property TLV are defined:

   Value    Length      Sub-TLV Type

   1        variable    Resource Block Information
   2        variable    Resource Accessibility
   3        variable    Resource Wavelength Constraints
   4        variable    Resource Block Pool State
   5        variable    Resource Block Shared Access Wavelength
                        Availability

   The detailed encodings of these sub-TLVs are found in [RFC7581] as
   indicated in the table below.

   Sub-TLV Type                                Section from [RFC7581]

   Resource Block Information                               4
   Resource Accessibility                                   3.1
   Resource Wavelength Constraints                          3.2
   Resource Block Pool State                                3.3
   Resource Block Shared Access Wavelength Availability     3.4

   All sub-TLVs defined here may occur at most once in any given Optical
   Node TLV under one TE LSA.  If more than one copy of the sub-TLV is
   received in the same LSA, the redundant sub-TLV SHOULD be ignored.
   If the same sub-TLV is advertised in a different TE LSA (which would
   only occur if there was a packaging error), then the sub-TLV with the
   largest LSA ID (Section 2.2 of RFC 3630) SHOULD be picked.  These
   restrictions need not apply to future sub-TLVs.  Unrecognized sub-
   TLVs are ignored.

   Among the sub-TLVs defined above, the Resource Block Pool State sub-
   TLV and Resource Block Shared Access Wavelength Availability are
   dynamic in nature, while the rest are static.  As such, they can be
   separated out from the rest and be advertised with multiple TE LSAs
   per OSPF router, as described in [RFC3630] and [RFC5250].

2.1.  Resource Block Information

   As defined in [RFC7446], this sub-TLV is used to represent resource
   signal constraints and processing capabilities of a node.

Top      ToC       Page 5 
2.2.  Resource Accessibility

   This sub-TLV describes the structure of the resource pool in relation
   to the switching device.  In particular, it indicates the ability of
   an ingress port to reach a resource block and of a resource block to
   reach a particular egress port.

2.3.  Resource Wavelength Constraints

   Resources, such as wavelength converters, etc., may have limited
   input or output wavelength ranges.  Additionally, due to the
   structure of the optical system, not all wavelengths can necessarily
   reach or leave all the resources.  The Resource Wavelength
   Constraints sub-TLV describes these properties.

2.4.  Resource Block Pool State

   This sub-TLV describes the usage state of a resource that can be
   encoded as either a list of integer values or a bitmap indicating
   whether a single resource is available or in use.  This information
   can be relatively dynamic, i.e., can change when a connection is
   established or torn down.

2.5.  Resource Block Shared Access Wavelength Availability

   Resource blocks may be accessed via a shared fiber.  If this is the
   case, then wavelength availability on these shared fibers is needed
   to understand resource availability.

3.  Interface Switching Capability Descriptor (ISCD) Format Extensions

    The ISCD describes the switching capability of an interface
    [RFC4202].  This document defines a new Switching Capability value
    for WSON as follows:

      Value         Type
      -----         ----
      151           WSON-LSC

   Switching Capability and Encoding values MUST be used as follows:

      Switching Capability = WSON-LSC

      Encoding Type = Lambda (as defined in [RFC3471])

Top      ToC       Page 6 
   When Switching Capability and Encoding fields are set to values as
   stated above, the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor MUST be
   interpreted as in [RFC4203] with the optional inclusion of one or
   more Switching Capability Specific Information sub-TLVs.

3.1.  Switching Capability Specific Information (SCSI)

   The technology-specific part of the WSON ISCD may include a variable
   number of sub-TLVs called Bandwidth sub-TLVs.  Two types of Bandwidth
   sub-TLV are defined:

      - Type 1: Available Labels

      - Type 2: Shared Backup Labels

   A SCSI may contain multiple Available Label sub-TLVs and multiple
   Shared Backup Label sub-TLVs.  The following figure shows the format
   for a SCSI that contains these sub-TLVs, where the Available Label
   Sub-TLV and Shared Backup Label sub-TLV are as defined in [RFC7579].
   The order of the sub-TLVs in the SCSI is arbitrary.

    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 = 1 (Available)   |           Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   |                 Available Label Sub-TLV                       |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                               ...                             ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Type = 2 (Shared backup)  |           Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   |                 Shared Backup Label Sub-TLV                   |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                         Figure 1: SCSI Format

   If duplicated sub-TLVs are advertised, the router/node will ignore
   the duplicated labels that are identified by the Label format defined
   in [RFC6205].

   The label format defined in [RFC6205] MUST be used when advertising
   interfaces with a WSON-LSC type Switching Capability.

Top      ToC       Page 7 
4.  WSON-Specific Scalability and Timeliness

   This document has defined five sub-TLVs specific to WSON.  The
   examples given in [RFC7581] show that very large systems, in terms of
   channel count, ports, or resources, can be very efficiently encoded.

   There has been concern expressed that some possible systems may
   produce LSAs that exceed the IP Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU).  In
   a typical node configuration, the Optical Node Property TLV will not
   exceed the IP MTU.  A typical node configuration refers to a system
   with several hundreds of channels with an OEO element in the node.
   This would give the Optical Node Property TLV less than 350 bytes.
   In addition, [RFC7581] provides mechanisms to compactly encode
   required information elements.  In a rare case where the TLV exceeds
   the IP MTU, IP fragmentation/reassembly can be used, which is an
   acceptable method.  For IPv6, a node may use the IPv6 Fragment header
   to fragment the packet at the source and have it reassembled at the
   destination(s).

   If the size of this LSA is greater than the MTU, then these sub-TLVs
   can be packed into separate LSAs.  From the point of view of path
   computation, the presence of the Resource Block Information sub-TLV
   indicates that resources exist in the system and may have signal
   compatibility or other constraints.  The other four sub-TLVs indicate
   constraints on access to and availability of those resources.

   Hence, the "synchronization" procedure is quite simple from the point
   of view of path computation.  Until a Resource Block Information sub-
   TLV is received for a system, path computation cannot make use of the
   other four sub-TLVs since it does not know the nature of the
   resources, e.g., whether the resources are wavelength converters,
   regenerators, or something else.  Once this sub-TLV is received, path
   computation can proceed with whatever sub-TLVs it may have received
   (their use is dependent upon the system type).

   If path computation proceeds with out-of-date or missing information
   from these sub-TLVs, then there is the possibility of either (a) path
   computation yielding a path that does not exist in the network, (b)
   path computation failing to find a path through the network that
   actually exists.  Both situations are currently encountered with
   GMPLS, i.e., out-of-date information on constraints or resource
   availability.

   If the new sub-TLVs or their attendant encodings are malformed, a
   proper implementation SHOULD log the problem and MUST stop sending
   the LSA that contains malformed TLVs or sub-TLVs.

Top      ToC       Page 8 
   Errors of this nature SHOULD be logged for the local operator.
   Implementations MUST provide a rate limit on such logs, and that rate
   limit SHOULD be configurable.

   Note that the connection establishment mechanism (signaling or
   management) is ultimately responsible for the establishment of the
   connection, and this implies that such mechanisms must ensure signal
   compatibility.

5.  Security Considerations

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

   As with [RFC4203], it specifies the contents of Opaque LSAs in
   OSPFv2.  As Opaque LSAs are not used for Shortest Path First (SPF)
   computation or normal routing, the extensions specified here have no
   direct effect on IP routing.  Tampering with GMPLS TE LSAs may have
   an effect on the underlying transport.  [RFC3630] notes that the
   security mechanisms described in [RFC2328] apply to Opaque LSAs
   carried in OSPFv2.

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

6.  IANA Considerations

6.1.  Optical Node Property TLV

   This document introduces a new Top-Level Node TLV (Optical Node
   Property TLV) under the OSPF TE LSA defined in [RFC3630].  IANA has
   registered a new TLV for "Optical Node Property".  The new TLV is in
   the "Top Level Types in TE LSAs" registry in "Open Shortest Path
   First (OSPF) Traffic Engineering TLVs" located at
   <http://www.iana.org/assignments/ospf-traffic-eng-tlvs>, and is as
   follows:

      Value             TLV Type                           Reference

      6                 Optical Node Property              RFC 7688

6.1.1.  Optical Node Property Sub-TLV

   Additionally, a new IANA registry has been created named "Types for
   sub-TLVs of Optical Node Property (Value 6)" in the "Open Shortest
   Path First (OSPF) Traffic Engineering TLVs" registry located at
   <http://www.iana.org/assignments/ospf-traffic-eng-tlvs>.  New sub-
   TLVs and their values have been assigned as follows:

Top      ToC       Page 9 
   Value      Length      Sub-TLV                         Reference

   0                      Reserved
   1          variable    Resource Block Information      RFC 7688
   2          variable    Resource Accessibility          RFC 7688
   3          variable    Resource Wavelength
                          Constraints                     RFC 7688
   4          variable    Resource Block Pool State       RFC 7688
   5          variable    Resource Block Shared
                          Access Wavelength Availability  RFC 7688
   6-65535                Unassigned

   The registration procedure for this registry is Standards Action as
   defined in [RFC5226].

6.2.  WSON-LSC Switching Type TLV

   IANA has registered a new switching type in the "Switching Types"
   registry in "GMPLS Signaling Parameters", located at
   <http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters>, as follows:

   Value    Description       Reference

   151      WSON-LSC          RFC 7688

   Also, IANA has added the following entry to the
   IANAGmplsSwitchingTypeTC MIB:

      wsonlsc(151), -- WSON-LSC

6.2.1.  WSON-LSC SCSI Sub-TLVs

   Additionally, a new IANA registry has been created for sub-TLVs of
   the WSON-LSC SCSI sub-TLV.  It is named "Types for sub-TLVs of
   WSON-LSC SCSI (Switching Capability Specific Information)" and is in
   the "Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) Traffic Engineering TLVs"
   registry.  It contains the following sub-TLVs:

      Value         Sub-TLV                      Reference

      0             Reserved
      1             Available Labels             RFC 7688
      2             Shared Backup Labels         RFC 7688
      3-65535       Unassigned

   The registration procedure for this registry is Standards Action as
   defined in [RFC5226].

Top      ToC       Page 10 
7.  References

7.1.  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>.

   [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>.

   [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>.

   [RFC6205]  Otani, T., Ed., and D. Li, Ed., "Generalized Labels for
              Lambda-Switch-Capable (LSC) Label Switching Routers", RFC
              6205, DOI 10.17487/RFC6205, March 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6205>.

   [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>.

   [RFC7580]  Zhang, F., Lee, Y., Han, J., Bernstein, G., and Y. Xu,
              "OSPF-TE Extensions for General Network Element
              Constraints", RFC 7580, DOI 10.17487/RFC7580, June 2015,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7580>.

   [RFC7581]  Bernstein, G., Ed., Lee, Y., Ed., Li, D., Imajuku, W., and
              J. Han, "Routing and Wavelength Assignment Information
              Encoding for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks", RFC
              7581, DOI 10.17487/RFC7581, June 2015,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7581>.

7.2. Informative References

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

Top      ToC       Page 11 
   [RFC3471]  Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
              Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC
              3471, DOI 10.17487/RFC3471, January 2003,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3471>.

   [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>.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.

   [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>.

   [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>.

   [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>.

   [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>.

Top      ToC       Page 12 
Authors' Addresses

   Young Lee (editor)
   Huawei Technologies
   5340 Legacy Drive, Building 3
   Plano, TX  75024
   United States

   Phone: (469) 277-5838
   Email: leeyoung@huawei.com


   Greg M. Bernstein (editor)
   Grotto Networking
   Fremont, CA
   United States

   Phone: (510) 573-2237
   Email: gregb@grotto-networking.com