One document matched: draft-ali-arp-over-gmpls-controlled-ethernet-psc-i-02.txt
Differences from draft-ali-arp-over-gmpls-controlled-ethernet-psc-i-01.txt
Internet Draft Zafar Ali
Cisco Systems
Tomohiro Otani
KDDI R&D Laboratories, Inc.
Document: draft-ali-arp-over-gmpls-
controlled-ethernet-psc-if-02.txt
Expires: April 2006 October 2006
Address Resolution for GMPLS controlled PSC Ethernet Interfaces
draft-ali-arp-over-gmpls-controlled-ethernet-psc-i-02.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Abstract
This document outlines some issues with the use of ARP over GMPLS
controlled Ethernet router-to-router (PSC) interfaces transiting from
a non-Ethernet core, e.g., FSC or LSC GMPLS core. The document also
proposes solutions accordingly.
Conventions used in this document
Ali, Z., Otani, T.
[Page 1]
draft-ali-arp-over-gmpls-controlled-ethernet-psc-i-02.txt Oct. 2006
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].
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................2
3. END_POINT_MAC_ADDR Object......................................3
4. Security Considerations........................................3
5. IANA Considerations............................................4
6. Intellectual Property Considerations...........................4
7. References.....................................................4
7.1 Normative Reference........................................4
7.2 Informative Reference......................................5
8. Author's Addresses.............................................5
9. Full Copyright Statement.......................................5
1. Introduction
This draft address the scenario where edge routers are connected via
a non-Ethernet switch capable GMPLS core, e.g., FSC or LSC core.
Furthermore, the interfaces between the router and the optical device
(OXC) are Ethernet.
When an LSP Path is established between the Ingress Router to Egress
Router, Ethernet interface at the two routers comes up. However,
before this LSP (or interface) can forward any IP traffic, MAC
address of the remote router needs to be learned.
End-point MAC address needs to be re-learned, every time the path
taken by the GMPLS LSP changes (e.g., due to re-routing or re-
optimization). This introduces latency that is at least equal to the
round trip delay. Such latency adds to the traffic switchover delay
and consequently traffic loss for 1:1 protected LSP without extra
traffic, or when LSP route changes due to re-routing (restoration) or
re-optimization, etc.
Interop issues in learning end-point MAC address using ARP are also
found among vendors at various Interop events/ testing efforts. This
is because different vendors use different IP address for ARP
resolution. Some LSR vendor uses the address of the TE link at the
end-point, while others adapt to use tunnel interface address for
ARP. When both end-point TE link address and tunnel interface
addresses are unnumbered, the ARP needs to be performed using
Ali, Z., Otani, T.
[Page 2]
draft-ali-arp-over-gmpls-controlled-ethernet-psc-i-02.txt Oct. 2006
loopback addresses. Some routers do not reply to ARP request sent to
a loopback address.
Issue with the use of IP address for ARP can be resolved by agreeing
on use of IP address and by requiring ARP using Loopback addresses.
However, issue associated with ARP latency and traffic loss for 1:1
protected LSP without extra traffic, or when LSP route changes due to
due to re-routing (restoration) or re-optimization, etc. could not be
addressed when we rely on ARP to learn end-point MAC address.
Consequently, this document proposes use of RSVP object
(END_POINT_MAC_ADDR) to carry hardware addresses at the two end of
the LSP, in the Path and Resv messages.
2. END_POINT_MAC_ADDR Object
The END_POINT_MAC_ADDR object has a class number TBA by IANA (of type
11bbbbbb), C-Type of TBD and length of 28. The format is given
below.
Figure 1: END_POINT_MAC_ADDR Object
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| |
| End Point’s MAC Address |
| |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
This object can optionally appear in either a Path message or a Resv
message.
The Ingress LSR puts the MAC address of its outgoing physical
interface (this is the first component link in the route, which is
hosted by the Ingress Router) in the Path message. When the Egress
Router receives a Path message with the END_POINT_MAC_ADDR object, it
adds END_POINT_MAC_ADDR object to the Resv message and puts the MAC
address of incoming physical interface (this is the last component
link in the route, which is host by the Egress Router).
3. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce new security issues. The security
considerations pertaining to the original RSVP protocol [RFC2205]
remain relevant.
Ali, Z., Otani, T.
[Page 3]
draft-ali-arp-over-gmpls-controlled-ethernet-psc-i-02.txt Oct. 2006
4. IANA Considerations
Type of RSVP Object proposed in this document needs to be assigned.
5. Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge close discussions on this topic
with Adrian Farrel and Dan Tappan.
6. Intellectual Property Considerations
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.
7. References
7.1 Normative Reference
[RFC2205] "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) - Version 1,
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, Braden, et al, September
1997.
[RFC3209] "Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", D. Awduche, et al,
RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC 4201] "Link Bundling in MPLS Traffic Engineering", K. Kompella,
et al, RFC 4202, October 2005.
Ali, Z., Otani, T.
[Page 4]
draft-ali-arp-over-gmpls-controlled-ethernet-psc-i-02.txt Oct. 2006
[RFC3471] Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Signaling Functional Description, RFC 3471, L. Berger, et al,
January 2003.
[RFC3473] "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-
TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, L. Berger, et al, January 2003.
[RFC3477] "Signaling Unnumbered Links in Resource ReSerVation
Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) ", RFC 3477, K. Kompella,
Y. Rekhter, January 2003.
[RFC2119] "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels",
RFC 2119, S. Bradner, March 1997.
7.2 Informative Reference
[ARP] "An Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol ", RFC 826, 1982.
8. Author's Addresses
Zafar Ali
Cisco Systems Inc.
2000 Innovation Dr.,
Kanata, Ontario, K2K 3E8
Canada.
Phone: (613) 889-6158
Email: zali@cisco.com
Tomohiro Otani
KDDI R&D Laboratories, Inc.
2-1-15 Ohara Fujimino-shi
Saitama, 356-8502. Japan
Phone: +81-49-278-7357
Email: otani@kddilabs.jp
9. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). 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.
Ali, Z., Otani, T.
[Page 5]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 05:52:17 |