One document matched: draft-boucadair-connectivity-provisioning-profile-03.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocompact="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="3"?>
<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc comments="yes"?>
<?rfc inline="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="yes"?>
<rfc category="info"
docName="draft-boucadair-connectivity-provisioning-profile-03"
ipr="trust200902" updates="">
<front>
<title abbrev="CPP">Connectivity Provisioning Profile (CPP)</title>
<author fullname="Mohamed Boucadair" initials="M." surname="Boucadair">
<organization>France Telecom</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street></street>
<city>Rennes</city>
<region></region>
<code>35000</code>
<country>France</country>
</postal>
<email>mohamed.boucadair@orange.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Christian Jacquenet" initials="C." surname="Jacquenet">
<organization>France Telecom</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street></street>
<city>Rennes</city>
<region></region>
<code>35000</code>
<country>France</country>
</postal>
<email>christian.jacquenet@orange.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Ning Wang" initials="N." surname="Wang">
<organization>University of Surrey </organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>University of Surrey</street>
<city>Guildford</city>
<region></region>
<code></code>
<country>UK</country>
</postal>
<email>n.wang@surrey.ac.uk</email>
</address>
</author>
<date day="04" month="March" year="2014" />
<abstract>
<t>This document describes the Connectivity Provisioning Profile (CPP)
and proposes a CPP Template to capture IP connectivity requirements to
be met within a service delivery context (e.g., Voice over IP or IP TV).
The CPP defines the set of IP transfer parameters to be supported by the
underlying transport network together with a reachability scope and
bandwidth/capacity needs. Appropriate performance metrics such as
one-way delay or one-way delay variation are used to characterize an IP
transfer service. Both global and restricted reachability scopes can be
captured in the CPP.</t>
<t>Such a generic CPP template is meant to (1) facilitate the automation
of the service negotiation and activation procedures, thus accelerating
service provisioning, (2) set (traffic) objectives of Traffic
Engineering functions and service management functions and (3) improve
service and network management systems with 'decision-making'
capabilities based upon negotiated/offered CPPs.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<middle>
<section title="Introduction">
<t>This document describes the Connectivity Provisioning Profile (CPP)
and proposes a CPP Template to capture IP/MPLS connectivity requirements
to be met within a service delivery context (e.g., Voice over IP, IP TV,
VPN services).</t>
<t>In this document, the IP connectivity service is the IP transfer
capability characterized by a (Destination, Guarantees, Scope) tuple
where "Destination" is a group of IP addresses, "Guarantees" reflect the
guarantees (expressed in terms of QoS, performance and availability, for
example) to properly forward traffic to the said "Destination". Finally,
the "Scope" denotes the (network) perimeter (e.g., between two PE
(Provider Equipment) routers where the said guarantees need to be
provided.</t>
<section title="Connectivity Provisioning Interface (CPI)">
<t><xref target="interactions2"></xref> shows the various connectivity
provisioning interfaces covered by CPP: the Customer-Network
Connectivity Provisioning Interface, the Service-Network Connectivity
Provisioning Interface, and the Network-Network Connectivity
Provisioning Interface. Services and applications whose parameters are
captured by means of a CPP exchanged through the Service-Network
Connectivity Provisioning Interface may be provided by the same
administrative entity that operates the underlying network, or by
another entity (for example, a Content Provider).</t>
<t><figure align="center" anchor="interactions2"
title="Connectivity Provisioning Interfaces">
<artwork><![CDATA[ +---------+
|Service A|
+---+-----+
| +---------+
|CPI |Service B|
| +-+-------+
| |CPI
+----------+ +-+------+-------+ +------------+
|Subscriber|-----|Network Provider|-----|Peer Network|
+----------+ CPI +----------------+ CPI +------------+
]]></artwork>
</figure>The interfaces depicted in <xref
target="interactions2"></xref>, can be summarized as shown in <xref
target="interactions"></xref>.</t>
<t>The Customer shown in <xref target="interactions"></xref> may be
another Network Provider (e.g., an IP transit provider), a Service
Provider (e.g., an IP telephony Service Provider) which requires the
invocation of resources provided by a Network Provider, or an
enterprise which wants to interconnect its various sites by
subscribing to a VPN service provided by a Network Provider. The
proposed CPP can be used to expose, capture, and facilitate the
negotiation of the service parameters between these various entities,
thereby presenting a common template for describing the available
connectivity services.</t>
<t><figure anchor="interactions"
title="CPP: Generic Connectivity Provisioning Interfaces">
<artwork align="center"><![CDATA[+----------------+
| Customer |
+-------+--------+
+ CPI
+-------+--------+
|Network Provider|
+----------------+
]]></artwork>
</figure>In the rest of the document, "Customer" is used as a
generic term to denote the business entity that subscribes to
connectivity services offered by a Network Provider (Figure 2).</t>
</section>
<section title="Rationale">
<t>Procedures for the design and the operation of IP services have
become increasingly diverse and complex. The time it takes to
negotiate service parameters and then proceed with the corresponding
resource allocation can thus be measured in days, if not weeks. Yet,
the bilateral discussions that usually take place between a customer
and a Network Provider hardly rely upon some kind of standard
checklist, where the customer would be invited to tick all the
parameters that apply to its environment, and then negotiate these
parameters with the Network Provider, as a function of the available
resources, the customer's expectations, the provider's network
planning policy, etc.</t>
<t>The definition of a clear interface between the service (including
third-party applications) and the network layers would therefore
facilitate the said discussion, thereby improving the overall service
delivery procedure by optimizing the design of the network
infrastructures. Indeed, the CPP interface aims at exposing and
characterizing, in a technology-agnostic manner, the IP transfer
requirements to be met when invoking IP transfer capabilities of a
network operated by a Network Provider between a set of Customer Nodes
(e.g., Media Gateway (section-11.2.7 <xref target="RFC2805"></xref>),
Session Border Controller <xref target="RFC5853"></xref>, etc.) .</t>
<t>These requirements include: reachability scope (e.g., limited
scope, Internet-wide), direction, bandwidth requirements, QoS
parameters (e.g., one-way delay <xref target="RFC2679"></xref>, loss
<xref target="RFC2680"></xref> or one-way delay variation <xref
target="RFC3393"></xref>), protection and high availability guidelines
(e.g., sub-50ms/sub-100ms/second restoration).</t>
<t>These requirements are then translated into IP/MPLS-related
technical clauses (e.g., need for recovery means, definition of the
class of service, need for control plane protection, etc.). In a later
stage, these various clauses will be addressed by the activation of
adequate network features and technology-specific actions (e.g.,
MPLS-TE (Multiprotocol Label Switching TE, <xref
target="RFC3346"></xref>), RSVP (Resource Reservation Protocol, <xref
target="RFC2205"></xref>), OSPF (Open Shortest Path First) or IS-IS
(Intermediate System to Intermediate System), etc.), by means of
CPP-derived configuration information.</t>
<t>For traffic conformance purposes, a CPP also includes flow
identification and classification rules to be followed by
participating nodes whenever they have to process traffic according to
a specific service as defined by the said CPP.</t>
<t>The CPP template aims at capturing connectivity needs and to
represent and value these requirements in a standardized manner.
Service- and Customer-specific IP provisioning rules may lead to a
dramatic increase of the number of IP transfer classes that need to be
(pre)-engineered in the network. Instantiating each CPP into a
distinct class of service should therefore be avoided for the sakes of
performance and scalability.</t>
<t>Therefore, application-agnostic IP provisioning practices should be
recommended since the requirements captured in the CPP can be used to
identify which network class of service is to be used to meet those
requirements/guarantees. From that standpoint, the CPP concept is
meant to design a limited number of generic classes, so that
individual CPP documents, by capturing the connectivity requirements
of services, applications and Customers, can be easily mapped to these
classes.</t>
<t>CPP may also be used as a guideline for network dimensioning and
planning teams of a Network Provider to ensure that appropriate
resources (e.g., network cards, routers, link capacity, etc.) have
been provisioned. Otherwise, (underlying) transport networks would not
be able to meet the objectives expressed in all CPP requests.</t>
<t>Such a generic CPP template:<list style="symbols">
<t>Facilitates the automation of the service negotiation and
activation procedures, thus improving service delivery times;</t>
<t>Can help setting Traffic Engineering function and service
management function objectives, as a function of the number of CPP
templates to be processed over a specific period of time, for
example.</t>
<t>Improves service and network management systems by adding
'decision-making' capabilities based upon negotiated/offered
CPPs.</t>
</list></t>
<t>In addition, this CPP abstraction makes a clear distinction between
the connectivity provisioning requirements and the associated
technology-specific rules that need to be applied by participating
nodes, and which are meant to accommodate such requirements.</t>
<t>The CPP defines the set of IP/MPLS transfer guarantees to be
offered by the underlying transport network together with a
reachability scope and capacity needs. Appropriate performance metrics
such as one-way delay or one-way delay variation are used to
characterize the IP transfer service. Guarantees related to
availability and resiliency are also included in the CPP.</t>
<t>The CPP can be used in an integrated business environment (where
the service and network infrastructures are managed by the same
administrative entity) or another business environment (where an
administrative entity manages the service while another manages the
network infrastructure). In the following sections, no assumption is
made about the business environment (integrated or not).</t>
<t>Service differentiation at the network layer can be enforced by
tweaking various parameters which belong to distinct dimensions (e.g,
forwarding, routing, processing of incoming traffic, traffic
classification, etc.). This document does not make any assumption on
how network services are implemented within an networking
infrastructure.</t>
<t>An example of CPP usage is through the northbound interface
introduced by the Application-based Network Operations (ABNO)
framework <xref
target="I-D.farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture"></xref>.</t>
</section>
<section title="Reference Architecture">
<t>Customer Nodes belong to a Customer (including corporate Customers)
or a service infrastructure (see <xref
target="interactions2"></xref>). In some contexts, Customer Nodes can
be provided and managed by the Network Provider. The connectivity
between these Customer Nodes reflects the IP transfer capability
implemented thanks to the allocation of a set of IP resources. IP
transfer capabilities are considered by the above services as black
boxes. Appropriate notifications and reports would be communicated
(through dedicated means) to Customer Nodes to assess the compliance
of the experienced IP transfer service against what has been
negotiated with the corresponding CPP. These notifications may also be
used to assess the efficiency of the various policies enforced in the
networking infrastructure to accommodate the requirements detailed in
the CPP.</t>
<t>The CPP reference architectures are depicted in <xref
target="ref"></xref><xref target="ref1"></xref><xref
target="ref2"></xref>.</t>
<t>The Customer infrastructure can be connected over networking
infrastructures managed by one or several Network Providers.</t>
<t><figure align="center" anchor="ref"
title="Reference Architecture: Connectivity service provided by the same Network Provider using distinct interconnection nodes">
<artwork><![CDATA[ .--. .--.. .--..--.
( '.--.
.-.' Customer Infrastructure'.-.
( )
+-------------+ +-------------+
|Customer Node|.--. .--.. .--.|Customer Node|
+-------------+ +-------------+
| |
+--------------+ +--------------+
|Provider Node |.--. .--.. . |Provider Node |
+--------------+ +--------------+
( )
.-.' Network '.-.
( )
( . . . . . .)
'.-_-.'.-_-._.'.-_-.'.-_-.'.--.'
]]></artwork>
</figure><figure align="center" anchor="ref1"
title="Reference Architecture: Connectivity service provided by the same Network Provider using via one single interconnection node">
<artwork><![CDATA[ .--. .--.. .--..--.
( '.--.
.-.' Customer Infrastructure'.-.
( )
+-------------+ +-------------+
|Customer Node|.--. .--.. .--.|Customer Node|
+-------------+ +-------------+
| |
+-----------------------------------+
| Provider Node |
+-----------------------------------+
( )
.-.' Network '.-.
( )
( . . . . . .)
'.-_-.'.-_-._.'.-_-.'.-_-.'.--.'
]]></artwork>
</figure><figure align="center" anchor="ref2"
title="Reference Architecture: Connectivity services provided by distinct Network Providers">
<artwork><![CDATA[ .--. .--.. .--..--.
( '.--.
.-.' Customer Infrastructure'.-.
( )
+-------------+ +-------------+
|Customer Node|.--. .--.. .--.|Customer Node|
+-------------+ +-------------+
| |
+--------------+ +--------------+
|Provider Node | |Provider Node |
+--------------+ +--------------+
( .--.) ( .--.)
.-.' Network A '.-. .-.' Network B '.-.
( ) ( )
(. . . .) (. . . .)
'.-_-.'.-_-._..' '.-_-.'.-_-._..'
]]></artwork>
</figure></t>
<t></t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Scope Of This Document">
<t>This document details the clauses of the CPP. Candidate protocols
(e.g., <xref
target="I-D.boucadair-connectivity-provisioning-protocol"></xref>) that
can be used to negotiate and enforce a given CPP are not discussed in
this document.</t>
<t>In addition to CPP clauses, other clauses may be included in an
agreement between a Customer and a Provider (e.g., contact point,
escalation procedure, incidents management, billing, etc.). It is out of
scope of this document to detail all those additional clauses.</t>
<t>Examples of how to translate CPP clauses into specific policies are
provided for illustration purposes. It is out of scope of this document
to provide an exhaustive list of the technical means to meet the
objectives detailed in a CPP.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="cpps" title="Connectivity Provisioning Profile (CPP)">
<t>A CPP can be seen as the inventory of connectivity provisioning
requirements with regard to the IP transfer service. CPP clauses are
elaborated in the following sub-sections. The CPP template is provided
in <xref target="rbnf"></xref>.</t>
<section title="Customer Nodes">
<t>A CPP must include the list of Customer Nodes (e.g., CEs) to be
connected to the underlying IP transport network.</t>
<t>These nodes should be unambiguously identified (e.g., using a
unique Service_identifier). For each Customer Node, a border link or a
node that belongs to the domain that connects the Customer Nodes
should be identified.</t>
<t>Based on the location of the Customer Node, appropriate operations
to retrieve the corresponding border link or “Provider
Node” (e.g., PE) should be undertaken. This operation can be
manual or automated.</t>
<t>A “service site” would be located behind a given
Customer Node. A site identifier may be captured in the CPP for the
provisioning of managed VPN services <xref target="RFC4026"></xref>
for instance (e.g., Site_identifier).</t>
<t>A Customer Node may be connected to several Provider Nodes and
multiple Customer Nodes may be connected to the same Provider Node
(see <xref target="ref"></xref>).</t>
</section>
<section anchor="scope" title="Scope">
<t>The Scope specifies the reachability of each of involved Customer
Nodes, from both an incoming and outgoing traffic perspectives,
thereby yielding specific traffic directionality considerations. It is
defined as an unidirectional parameter. Both directions should be
described in the CPP.</t>
<t>The reachability scope may be defined as the set of destination
prefixes that can be reached from a given customer site. Both global
and restricted reachability scopes can be captured in the CPP. A
restricted reachability scope means no global reachability is allowed
and only a set of destinations can be reached from a customer
site.</t>
<t>Both IPv4 and IPv6 scopes may be distinguished.</t>
<t>A “Scope” delimits a topological (or geographical)
network portion beyond which the performance and availability
guarantees do not apply.</t>
<t>A scope may be defined by an “Ingress” point and an
“Egress” point. Several types may be considered, such as:
<list style="empty">
<t>(1) "1:1" Pipe model. Only point-to-point communications are
allowed.</t>
<t>(2) "1:N" Hose model. Only communications from one site towards
a set of destinations are allowed.</t>
<t>(3) "1:any" Unspecified hose model. All outbound communications
are allowed.</t>
</list></t>
<t>The Ingress and Egress points could be Customer Nodes/Provider
Nodes or external nodes, provided that these nodes are unambiguously
identified (e.g., IPv6 prefix), or a set of IP destinations.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="guarantees" title="QoS Guarantees">
<t>QoS guarantees denote a set of IP transfer performance metrics
which characterize the quality of the IP transfer treatment to be
experienced (when crossing an IP transport infrastructure) by a flow
issued from or forwarded to a (set of) "Customer Node(s)".</t>
<t>IP performance metrics can be expressed as qualitative or
quantitative parameters (both quantitative and qualitative guarantees
cannot be specified in the same CPP). When quantitative metrics are
used, maximum or average numerical values are provided together with a
validity interval which should be indicated in the measurement
method.</t>
<t>Several performance metrics have been defined such as: <list
style="symbols">
<t>Traffic Loss <xref target="RFC2680"></xref></t>
<t>One way delay <xref target="RFC2679"></xref></t>
<t>One way delay variation <xref target="RFC3393"></xref></t>
</list>The value of these parameters may be specific to a given path
or a given scope (e.g., between two Customer Nodes). Concretely, IP
performance metric values indicated in a CPP should reflect the
measurement between a set of Customer Nodes or between a Customer Node
and a set of Provider Nodes.</t>
<t>Quantitative guarantees can only be specified for in-profile
traffic (i.e., up to a certain traffic rate). A CPP can include
throughput guarantees; when specified, these guarantees are equivalent
to quantitative or qualitative loss guarantees.</t>
<t>the Meta-QoS class concept can be used when qualitative metrics are
used <xref target="RFC5160"></xref>.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="guarantees1" title="Availability Guarantees">
<t>This clause specifies the percentage of the time during which the
agreed IP performance guarantees apply. The clause can be expressed as
maximum/average. The exact meaning of the clause value is defined
during the CPP negotiation process.</t>
<t>The guarantees cover both QoS deterioration (i.e., IP transfer
service is available but it is below the agreed performance bounds),
physical failures or service unavailability in general. In order to
meet the availability guarantees, several engineering practices may be
enforced at the border between the customer and the Network Provider,
such as multi-homing designs.</t>
<t>The following mechanisms are provided as examples that show that
different technical options may be chosen to meet the service
availability objectives:<list style="symbols">
<t>When an IGP instance is running between the “Customer
Node” and the “Provider Node”, activate a
dedicated protocol, such as BFD (Bi-directional Forwarding
Detection <xref target="RFC5881"></xref><xref
target="RFC5883"></xref>), to control IGP availability and to
ensure sub-second IGP adjacency failure detection.</t>
<t>Use of LSP Ping capability to detect LSP availability (check
whether the LSP is in place or not) <xref
target="RFC4379"></xref>.</t>
<t>Pre-install backup LSPs for fast-reroute purposes, when a MPLS
network connects Customer Nodes <xref
target="RFC4090"></xref>.</t>
<t>Enable VRRP <xref target="RFC5798"></xref>.</t>
<t>Enable IP Fast Reroute features (e.g., <xref
target="RFC5286"></xref>).</t>
</list></t>
</section>
<section anchor="cap" title="Capacity">
<t>This clause characterizes the required capacity to be provided by
the underlying IP transport network. This capacity is bound to a
defined "Scope" (See <xref target="scope"></xref>) and IP transfer
performance guarantees <xref target="guarantees">(see </xref><xref
target="guarantees1"> and </xref>).</t>
<t>The capacity may be expressed for both traffic directions (i.e.,
incoming and outgoing) and for every border link. The capacity clause
defines the limits of the application of quantitative guarantees.</t>
<t>It is up to the administrative entity, which manages the IP
transport network, to appropriately dimension its network <xref
target="RFC5136"></xref> to meet the capacity requirements expressed
in all negotiated CPPs.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="ct" title="Conformance Traffic">
<t>When capacity information (see <xref target="cap"></xref>) is
included in the CPP, requirements for Out-of-Profile traffic treatment
need to be also expressed in the CPP.</t>
<t>Shaping/policing filters may be applied so as to assess whether
traffic is within the capacity profile or out of profile.
Out-of-Profile traffic may be discarded or assigned another class
(e.g., using the Lower than Best Effort PDB <xref
target="RFC3662"></xref>).</t>
<t>Packet MTU conditions may also be indicated in the CPP.</t>
</section>
<section title="Overall Traffic Guarantees">
<t>Overall traffic guarantees are defined when Traffic Volume (<xref
target="cap"></xref>)/Conformance (<xref target="ct"></xref>) clauses
are not specified. Or if they are actually specified, then
Out-of-Profile traffic is assigned another class of service, but is
not discarded. Such guarantees can only be qualitative delay and/or
qualitative loss or throughput guarantees.</t>
<t>If overall traffic guarantees are not specified, best effort
forwarding is implied.</t>
</section>
<section title="Traffic Isolation">
<t>This clause indicates if the traffic issued by/destined to
“Customer Nodes” should be isolated when crossing the IP
transport network.</t>
<t>This clause can then be translated into VPN policy provisioning
information, such as the information pertaining to the activation of
dedicated tunnels using IPsec, BGP/MPLS VPN facilities <xref
target="RFC4364"></xref>, or a combination thereof. The activation of
such features should be consistent with the availability and
performance guarantees that have been negotiated.</t>
</section>
<section title="Flow Identification">
<t>To identify the flows that need to be handled within the context of
a given CPP, flow identifiers should be indicated in the CPP. This
identifier is used for traffic classification purposes.</t>
<t>A flow identifier may be composed of the following parameters:
<list style="symbols">
<t>Source IP address,</t>
<t>Source port number,</t>
<t>Destination IP address,</t>
<t>Destination port number,</t>
<t>ToS or DSCP field,</t>
<t>Tail-end tunnel endpoint, or</t>
<t>Any combination thereof.</t>
</list></t>
<t>Distinct treatments may be implemented for elastic and non elastic
traffic (e.g., see the "Constraints on traffic" clause defined in
<xref target="RFC5160"></xref>).</t>
<t>Flow classification rules may be specific to a given link or a
given rule may be applied for all border links. This should be clearly
captured in the CPP. For incoming traffic, some practices such as DSCP
re-marking should be indicated in CPP. Re-marking action is under the
responsibility of IP nodes, but this should be conditioned by some
constraints such as maintaining the service-specific marking integrity
(e.g., VPN service).</t>
</section>
<section title="Routing & Forwarding">
<t>When outsourced routing actions are required, dedicated routes may
be installed so as to convey the traffic to its (service) destination.
These routes may be computed, selected and installed for traffic
engineering purposes (e.g., to forward the traffic to some destination
while avoiding some nodes (or ASes)).</t>
<t>A requirement for setting up a logical routing topology may also be
considered <xref target="RFC4915"></xref> or <xref
target="RFC5120"></xref>, e.g., to facilitate the management of the
nodes that are involved in the forwarding of the traffic as defined in
the CPP.</t>
<t>This practice should be indicated in the CPP, otherwise path
computation is left to the underlying IP routing capabilities. The
forwarding behavior (e.g., Per Domain Behavior) may also be specified
in a CPP, but remains optional. If indicated, consistency with the IP
performance bounds defined in the CPP should be carefully ensured.</t>
<t>In the context of VoIP (Voice over IP) deployments for instance, a
routing policy would be to avoid satellite links since this may
degrade the offered service.</t>
</section>
<section title="Activation Means">
<t>This clause indicates the required action(s) to be undertaken to
activate access to the IP connectivity service.</t>
<t>Examples of these actions would be the activation of an IGP
instance, the establishment of a BGP <xref target="RFC4271"></xref> or
MP-BGP session <xref target="RFC4760"></xref>, etc.</t>
</section>
<section title="Invocation Means">
<t>Two types are defined:<list style="hanging">
<t hangText="Implicit:">This clause indicates that no explicit
means to invoke the connectivity service is required. Access to
the connectivity service is primarily conditioned by the requested
network capacity.</t>
<t hangText="Explicit:">This clause indicates the need for
explicit means to access the connectivity service. Examples of
such means include the use of RSVP <xref target="RFC2205"></xref>
or RSVP-TE <xref target="RFC3209"></xref>. Appropriate access
control procedures <xref target="RFC6601"></xref> would have to be
enforced to check whether the capacity actually used is not above
the agreed threshold.</t>
</list></t>
</section>
<section title="Notifications">
<t>For operation purposes (e.g., supervision) and service fulfillment
needs, management platforms need to be notified about critical events
which may impact the delivery of the service.</t>
<t>The notification procedure should be indicated in the CPP. This
procedure may specify the type of information to be sent, the
interval, the data model, etc.</t>
<t>Notifications can be sent to the management platform by using SNMP,
Syslog notifications, CPNP signals, or a phone call!</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="CPP Template">
<t><xref target="rbnf"></xref> provides the RBNF (Routing Backus-Naur
Form, <xref target="RFC5511"></xref>) format of the CPP template. A CPP
document includes several connectivity provisioning components; each of
these is structured as a CPP. </t>
<t><figure align="center" anchor="rbnf" title="CPP Template">
<artwork><![CDATA[<CONNECTIVITY_PROVISIONING_DOCUMENT> ::=
<Connectivity Provisioning Component> ...
<Connectivity Provisioning Component> ::=
<CONNECTIVITY_PROVISIONING_PROFILE> ...
<CONNECTIVITY_PROVISIONING_PROFILE> ::=
<Customer Nodes Map>
<Scope>
<QoS Guarantees>
<Availability>
<Capacity>
<Traffic Isolation>
<Conformance Traffic>
<Flow Identification>
<Overall Traffic Guarantees>
<Routing and Forwarding>
<Activation Means>
<Invocation Means>
<Notifications>
<Customer Nodes Map> ::= <Customer Node> ...
<Customer Node> ::= <IDENTIFIER>
<LINK_IDENTIFIER>
<LOCALISATION>]]></artwork>
</figure></t>
<t>The description of these clauses is provided in <xref
target="cpps"></xref>. </t>
<t>The CPP may include Customer's administrative information, such as a
name and other contact details. An example of the RBNF format of the
Customer's information is shown in <xref target="customer"></xref>.</t>
<t><figure align="center" anchor="customer"
title="Customer Description Clause">
<artwork><![CDATA[<Customer Description> ::= <NAME> <Contact Information>
<Contact Information> ::= <EMAIL_ADDRESS> [<POSTAL_ADDRESS>]
[<TELEPHONE_NUMBER> ...]
]]></artwork>
</figure>The CPP may include administrative information of the Network
Provider too (name, AS number(s), and other contact details). An example
of the RBNF format of the provider's information is shown in <xref
target="NP"></xref>.</t>
<t><figure align="center" anchor="NP"
title="Provider Description Clause">
<artwork><![CDATA[<Provider Description> ::= <NAME><Contact Information>[<AS_NUMBER>]
<Contact Information> ::= <EMAIL_ADDRESS> [<POSTAL_ADDRESS>]
[<TELEPHONE_NUMBER> ...]
]]></artwork>
</figure></t>
</section>
<section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations">
<t>This document does not require any action from IANA.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="Security" title="Security Considerations">
<t>This document does not define an architecture nor specify a protocol.
Yet, means to guarantee the identity and the ability of a Customer to
expose its connectivity requirements to a Network Provider through a CPP
and, likewise, means to guarantee the identity and the ability of a
Network Provider to expose its capabilities and to capture the
requirements of a Customer through a CPP should be properly
investigated.</t>
<t>CPP documents should be protected againts illegitame modifications
(e.g., modification, withdrawal); authorization means should be enabled.
These means are deployment-specific. </t>
</section>
<section anchor="Acknowledgements" title="Acknowledgements">
<t>Some of the items listed above are the results of several discussions
with E. Mykoniati and D. Griffin. Special thanks to them.</t>
<t>Many thanks to P. Georgatsos for the discussions and the detailed
review of this document.</t>
<t>S. Shah, Huston, and D. King reviewed the document and provided
useful comments.</t>
</section>
</middle>
<back>
<references title="Normative References">
<?rfc ?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.2679'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.2680'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.4271'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.3209'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.2205'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.5136'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.4364'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.3393'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.4379'
?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.4090'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.5120'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.4915'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.5881'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.5883'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.5798'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.4760'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.5286'?>
</references>
<references title="Informative References">
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.3662'?>
<?rfc include='reference.I-D.farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture'?>
<?rfc include='reference.I-D.boucadair-connectivity-provisioning-protocol'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.5160'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.3346'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.4026'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.5853'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.6601'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.2805'?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.5511'?>
</references>
</back>
</rfc>
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 05:43:32 |