One document matched: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-requirements-02.txt
Differences from draft-ietf-mpls-tp-requirements-01.txt
Network Working Group B. Niven-Jenkins, Ed.
Internet-Draft BT
Intended status: Informational D. Brungard, Ed.
Expires: July 7, 2009 AT&T
M. Betts, Ed.
Nortel Networks
N. Sprecher
Nokia Siemens Networks
S. Ueno
NTT
January 3, 2009
MPLS-TP Requirements
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-requirements-02
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and 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.
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 7, 2009.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 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
Niven-Jenkins, et al. Expires July 7, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Requirements January 2009
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document.
Abstract
This document specifies the requirements of an MPLS Transport Profile
(MPLS-TP). This document is a product of a joint International
Telecommunications Union (ITU)-IETF effort to include an MPLS
Transport Profile within the IETF MPLS architecture to support the
capabilities and functionalities of a packet transport network as
defined by International Telecommunications Union -
Telecommunications Standardization Sector (ITU-T).
This work is based on two sources of requirements; MPLS architecture
as defined by IETF, and packet transport networks as defined by
ITU-T.
The requirements expressed in this document are for the behavior of
the protocol mechanisms and procedures that constitute building
blocks out of which the MPLS transport profile is constructed. The
requirements are not implementation requirements.
Requirements Language
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].
Niven-Jenkins, et al. Expires July 7, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Requirements January 2009
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2. Transport network overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2. MPLS-TP Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.1. General requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2. Layering requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3. Data plane requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.4. Control plane requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.5. Network Management (NM) requirements . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.6. Operation, Administration and Maintenance (OAM)
requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.7. Network performance management (PM) requirements . . . . . 14
2.8. Recovery & Survivability requirements . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.8.1. Data plane behavior requirements . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.8.2. Triggers for protection, restoration, and reversion . 17
2.8.3. Management plane operation of protection and
restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.8.4. Control plane and in-band OAM operation of recovery . 18
2.8.5. Topology-specific recovery mechanisms . . . . . . . . 18
2.9. QoS requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.10. Security requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Niven-Jenkins, et al. Expires July 7, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Requirements January 2009
1. Introduction
For many years, Synchronous Optical Networking (SONET)/Synchronous
Digital hierarchy (SDH) has provided carriers with a high benchmark
for reliability and operational simplicity. With the accelerating
growth and penetration of:
o Packet-based services such as Ethernet, Voice over IP (VoIP),
Layer 2 (L2)/Layer 3 (L3) Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), IP
Television (IPTV), Radio Access Network (RAN) backhauling, etc.
o Applications with various bandwidth and QoS requirements.
Carriers are in need of technologies capable of efficiently
supporting packet-based services and applications on their transport
networks. The need to increase their revenue while remaining
competitive forces operators to look for the lowest network Total
Cost of Ownership (TCO). Investment in equipment and facilities
(Capital Expenditure (CAPEX)) and Operational Expenditure (OPEX)
should be minimized.
Carriers are considering migrating or evolving to packet transport
networks in order to reduce their costs and to improve their ability
to support services with guaranteed Service Level Agreements (SLAs).
For carriers it is important that migrating from SONET/SDH to packet
transport networks should not involve dramatic changes in network
operation, should not necessitate extensive retraining, and should
not require major changes to existing work practices. The aim is to
preserve the look-and-feel to which carriers have become accustomed
in deploying their SONET/SDH networks, while providing common, multi-
layer operations, resiliency, control and management for packet,
circuit and lambda transport networks.
Transport carriers require control and deterministic usage of network
resources. They need end-to-end control to engineer network paths
and to efficiently utilize network resources. They require
capabilities to support static (Operations Support System (OSS)
based) or dynamic (control plane) provisioning of deterministic,
protected and secured services and their associated resources.
Carriers will still need to cope with legacy networks (which are
composed of many layers and technologies), thus the packet transport
network should interwork with other packet and transport networks
(both horizontally and vertically). Vertical interworking is also
known as client/server or network interworking. Horizontal
interworking is also known as peer-partition or service interworking.
For more details on each type of interworking and some of the issues
that may arise (especially with horizontal interworking) see
Niven-Jenkins, et al. Expires July 7, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Requirements January 2009
[ITU.Y1401.2008].
MPLS is a maturing packet technology and it is already playing an
important role in transport networks and services. However, not all
of MPLS's capabilities and mechanisms are needed and/or consistent
with transport network operations. There is therefore the need to
define an MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) in order to support the
capabilities and functionalities needed for packet transport network
services and operations through combining the packet experience of
MPLS with the operational experience of SONET/SDH.
MPLS-TP will enable the migration of SONET/SDH networks to a packet-
based network that will efficiently scale to support packet services
in a simple and cost effective way. MPLS-TP needs to combine the
necessary existing capabilities of MPLS with additional minimal
mechanisms in order that it can be used in a transport role.
This document specifies the requirements of an MPLS Transport Profile
(MPLS-TP). The requirements are for the the behavior of the protocol
mechanisms and procedures that constitute building blocks out of
which the MPLS transport profile is constructed. That is, the
requirements indicate what features are to be available in the MPLS
toolkit for use by MPLS-TP. The requirements in this document do not
describe what functions an MPLS-TP implementation supports. The
purpose of this document is to identify the toolkit and any new
protocol work that is required.
This document is a product of a joint ITU-IETF effort to include an
MPLS Transport Profile within the IETF MPLS architecture to support
the capabilities and functionalities of a packet transport network as
defined by ITU-T.
This work is based on two sources of requirements, MPLS architecture
as defined by IETF and packet transport networks as defined by ITU-T.
The requirements of MPLS-TP are provided below. The relevant
functions of MPLS are included in MPLS-TP, except where explicitly
excluded.
Although both static and dynamic configuration of MPLS-TP transport
paths (including Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) and
protection capabilities) is required by this document, it MUST be
possible for operators to be able to completely operate (including
OAM and protection capabilities) an MPLS-TP network in the absence of
any control plane protocols for dynamic configuration.
Niven-Jenkins, et al. Expires July 7, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Requirements January 2009
1.1. Terminology
Domain: A domain represents a collection of entities (for example
network elements) that are grouped for a particular purpose, examples
of which are administrative and/or managerial responsibilities, trust
relationships, addressing schemes, infrastructure capabilities,
survivability techniques, distributions of control functionality,
etc. Examples of such domains include IGP areas and Autonomous
Systems.
Layer network: A layer network as defined in G.805 [ITU.G805.2000]
provides for the transfer of client information and independent
operations (OAM) of the client OAM. For an explanation of how a
layer network as described by G.805 relates to the OSI concept of
layering see Appendix I of Y.2611 [ITU.Y2611.2006].
Link: A link as defined in G.805 [ITU.G805.2000] is used to describe
a fixed relationship between two ports within a layer network. A
link is not necessarily a physical link but can also be supported by
a transport path in the server layer (e.g. SONET/SDH, OTN or
MPLS-TP).
Logical Ring: An MPLS-TP logical ring is constructed from a set of
LSRs and logical data links (such as MPLS-TP LSP tunnels or MSPL-TP
pseudowires) and physical data links that form a ring topology.
Path: See Transport path.
Physical Ring: An MPLS-TP physical ring is constructed from a set of
LSRs and physical data links that form a ring topology.
Ring Topology: In an MPLS-TP ring topology each LSR is connected to
exactly two other LSRs, each via a single point-to-point
bidirectional MPLS-TP capable data link. A ring may also be
constructed from only two LSRs where there are also exactly two
links. Rings may be connected to other LSRs to form a larger
network. Traffic originating or terminating outside the ring may be
carried over the ring. Client network nodes (such as CEs) may be
connected directly to an LSR in the ring.
Section: A section is a server layer (which may be MPLS-TP or a
different technology) which provides for encapsulation and OAM of a
MPLS-TP transport path client layer. A section layer may provide for
aggregation of multiple MPLS-TP clients.
Segment: A segment is a single resource or a set of cross-connected
resources that constitutes part of a path. A segment may be a single
link (hop) within a path, a series of adjacent links (hops) within a
Niven-Jenkins, et al. Expires July 7, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Requirements January 2009
path, or the entire end-to-end-path.
Tandem Connection: A tandem connection is an arbitrary part of a
transport path that can be monitored (via OAM) independently from the
end-to-end monitoring (OAM). It may be a segment or any other
ordered sequence of contiguous links and/or segments of a transport
path.
Transport path: A network connection as defined in G.805
[ITU.G805.2000]. A Transport path corresponds to an MPLS-TP LSP or
to an MPLS-TP LSP and its associated PW or PWs (Single Segment or
Multi-Segment).
Transport path layer: A layer network which provides point-to-point
or point-to-multipoint transport paths which are used to carry a
higher (client) layer network or aggregates of higher (client) layer
networks, for example the transport service layer. It provides for
independent OAM (of the client OAM) in the transport of the clients.
Transport service layer: A layer network in which transport paths are
used to carry a customer's (individual or bundled) service (may be
point-to-point, point-to-multipoint or multipoint-to-multipoint
services).
Transmission media layer: A layer network which provides sections
(two-port point-to-point connections) to carry the aggregate of
network transport path or network service layers on various physical
media.
1.2. Transport network overview
The connection (or transport path) service is the basic service
provided by a transport network. The purpose of a transport network
is to carry its clients (i.e. the stream of client PDUs or client
bits) between endpoints in the network (typically over several
intermediate nodes). These endpoints may be service switching points
or service terminating points. The connection services offered to
customers are aggregated into large transport paths with long-holding
times and independent OAM (of the client OAM), which contribute to
enabling the efficient and reliable operation of the transport
network. These transport paths are modified infrequently.
Aggregation and hierarchy are beneficial for achieving scalability
and security since:
1. They reduce the number of provisioning and forwarding states in
the network core.
Niven-Jenkins, et al. Expires July 7, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Requirements January 2009
2. They reduce load and the cost of implementing service assurance
and fault management.
3. Clients are encapsulated and layer associated OAM overhead is
added. This allows complete isolation of customer traffic and
its management from carrier operations.
An important attribute of a transport network is that it is able to
function regardless of which clients are using its connection service
or over which transmission media it is running. The client,
transport network and server layers are from a functional and
operations point of view independent layer networks. Another key
characteristic of transport networks is the capability to maintain
the integrity of the client across the transport network. A
transport network must provide the means to commit quality of service
objectives to clients. This is achieved by providing a mechanism for
client network service demarcation for the network path together with
an associated network resiliency mechanism. A transport network must
also provide a method of service monitoring in order to verify the
delivery of an agreed quality of service. This is enabled by means
of carrier-grade OAM tools.
Clients are first encapsulated. These encapsulated client signals
may then be aggregated into a connection for transport through the
network in order to optimize network management. Server layer OAM is
used to monitor the transport integrity of the client layer or client
aggregate. At any hop, the aggregated signals may be further
aggregated in lower layer transport network paths for transport
across intermediate shared links. The encapsulated client signals
are extracted at the edges of aggregation domains, and are either
delivered to the client or forwarded to another domain. In the core
of the network, only the server layer aggregated signals are
monitored; individual client signals are monitored at the network
boundary in the client layer network. Although the connectivity of
the client of the transport path layer may be point-to-point, point-
to-multipoint or multipoint-to-multipoint, the transport path layer
itself only provides point-to-point or point-to-multipoint transport
paths which are used to carry the client.
Quality-of-service mechanisms are required in the packet transport
network to ensure the prioritization of critical services, to
guarantee BW and to control jitter and delay.
2. MPLS-TP Requirements
Niven-Jenkins, et al. Expires July 7, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Requirements January 2009
2.1. General requirements
1 The MPLS-TP data plane MUST be a subset of the MPLS data plane as
defined by the IETF. When MPLS offers multiple options in this
respect, MPLS-TP SHOULD select the minimum sub-set (necessary and
sufficient subset) applicable to a transport network application.
2 Any new functionality that is defined to fulfil the requirements
for MPLS-TP MUST be agreed within the IETF through the IETF
consensus process and MUST re-use (as far as practically
possible) existing MPLS standards.
3 Mechanisms and capabilities MUST be able to interoperate, without
a gateway function, with existing IETF MPLS [RFC3031] and IETF
PWE3 [RFC3985] control and data planes where appropriate.
4 MPLS-TP MUST be a connection-oriented packet switching model with
traffic engineering capabilities that allow deterministic control
of the use of network resources.
5 MPLS-TP MUST support traffic engineered point to point (P2P) and
point to multipoint (P2MP) transport paths.
6 MPLS-TP MUST support the logical separation of the control and
management planes from the data plane.
7 MPLS-TP MUST allow the physical separation of the control and
management planes from the data plane.
8 MPLS-TP MUST support static provisioning of transport paths via
an OSS, i.e. via the management plane.
9 Mechanisms in an MPLS-TP network that satisfy functional
requirements that are common to general transport networks (i.e.,
independent of technology) SHOULD be manageable in a way that is
coherent with the way the equivalent mechanisms are managed in
other transport networks.
10 Static provisioning MUST NOT depend on the presence of any
element of a control plane.
11 MPLS-TP MUST support the capability for network operation
(including OAM and recovery) via the management plane (without
the use of any control plane protocols).
Niven-Jenkins, et al. Expires July 7, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Requirements January 2009
12 A solution MUST be provided to support dynamic provisioning of
MPLS-TP transport paths via a control plane.
13 The MPLS-TP data plane MUST be capable of forwarding data and
taken recovery actions independently of the control or management
plane used to operate the MPLS-TP layer network. That is, the
MPLS-TP data plane MUST continue to operate normally if the
management plane or control plane that configured the transport
paths fails.
14 MPLS-TP SHOULD support mechanisms to avoid or minimize traffic
impact (e.g. packet delay, reordering and loss) during network
reconfiguration.
15 MPLS-TP MUST support transport paths through multiple homogeneous
domains.
16 MPLS-TP MUST NOT dictate the deployment of any particular network
topology either physical or logical, however:
A. It MUST be possible to deploy MPLS-TP in rings.
B. It MUST be possible to deploy MPLS-TP in arbitrarily
interconnected rings with one or two points of
interconnection.
C. MPLS-TP MUST support rings of at least 16 nodes in order to
support the upgrade of existing TDM rings to MPLS-TP.
MPLS-TP SHOULD support rings with more than 16 nodes.
D. It MUST be possible to construct rings from equipment
supplied by different vendors and to interconnect rings made
wholly from equipment from different vendors. [Editor's
note: This requirement comes from work provided by ITU-T
Q9/15. Unless someone can provide a reason why this would
not be the case we should remove this requirement. It is
equivalent to saying that all correct implementations of
MPLS-TP MUST interwork.]
17 MPLS-TP MUST be able to scale gracefully with growing and
increasingly complex network topologies as well as with
increasing bandwidth demands, number of customers, and number of
services.
18 MPLS-TP SHOULD support mechanisms to safeguard against the
provisioning of transport paths which contain forwarding loops.
Niven-Jenkins, et al. Expires July 7, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Requirements January 2009
2.2. Layering requirements
19 An MPLS-TP network MUST be able to support one or more client
network layers, and MUST be able to use one or more server
network layers.
20 A solution MUST be provided to support the transport of MPLS-TP
transport paths over MPLS-TP (MPLS-TP as a client of MPLS-TP)
21 A generic and extensible solution MUST be provided to support the
transport of any client layer network (e.g. Ethernet, ATM, FR,
etc.) over an MPLS-TP layer network.
22 A solution MUST be provided to support the transport of MPLS-TP
transport paths over any server layer network (such as Ethernet,
SONET/SDH, OTN, etc.).
23 In an environment where an MPLS-TP layer network is supporting a
client network, and the MPLS-TP layer network is supported by a
server layer network then operation of the MPLS-TP layer network
MUST be possible without any dependencies on the server or client
network.
24 It MUST be possible to operate the layers of a multi-layer
network that includes an MPLS-TP layer autonomously.
The above are not only technology requirements, but also operational.
Different administrative groups may be responsible for the same layer
network or different layer networks.
25 It MUST be possible to hide MPLS-TP layer network addressing and
other information (e.g. topology) from client layers.
2.3. Data plane requirements
26 The identification of each transport path within its aggregate
MUST be supported.
27 A label in a particular link MUST uniquely identify the transport
path within that link.
28 A transport path's source MUST be identifiable at its destination
within its layer network.
29 MPLS-TP MUST support MPLS labels that are assigned by the
downstream (with respect to data flow) node per [RFC3031] and
[RFC3473] and MAY support context-specific MPLS labels as defined
in [RFC5331].
Niven-Jenkins, et al. Expires July 7, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Requirements January 2009
30 It MUST be possible to operate and configure the MPLS-TP data
(transport) plane without any IP forwarding capability in the
MPLS-TP data plane.
31 MPLS-TP MUST support both unidirectional and bidirectional point-
to-point transport paths.
32 An MPLS-TP network MUST require the forward and backward
directions of a bidirectional transport path to follow the same
path at each layer.
33 The intermediate nodes at each layer MUST be aware about the
pairing relationship of the forward and the backward directions
belonging to the same bi-directional transport path.
34 MPLS-TP MAY support transport paths with asymmetric bandwidth
requirements, i.e. the amount of reserved bandwidth differs
between the forward and backward directions.
35 MPLS-TP MUST support unidirectional point-to-multipoint transport
paths.
36 MPLS-TP MUST be extensible in order to accommodate new types of
client networks and services.
37 MPLS-TP SHOULD support mechanisms to enable the reserved
bandwidth associated with a transport path to be increased
without impacting the > existing traffic on that transport path
38 MPLS-TP SHOULD support mechanisms to enable the reserved
bandwidth of a transport path to be decreased without impacting
the existing traffic on that transport path, provided that the
level of existing traffic is smaller than the reserved bandwidth
following the decrease.
39 MPLS-TP MUST support mechanisms which ensure the integrity of the
transported customer's service traffic.
40 MPLS-TP MUST support an unambiguous and reliable means of
distinguishing users' (client) packets from MPLS-TP control
packets (e.g. control plane, management plane, OAM and protection
switching packets).
2.4. Control plane requirements
This section defines the requirements that apply to MPLS-TP when a
control plane is deployed.
Niven-Jenkins, et al. Expires July 7, 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Requirements January 2009
The requirements for ASON signalling and routing and the requirements
for multi-region and multi-layer networks as specified in [RFC4139],
[RFC4258] and [RFC5212] respectively apply to MPLS-TP.
[ITU-T Comment: the MPLS-TP control plane should meet the
requirements for ASON architecture (G.8080, ...) unless explicitly
excluded as well as the additional MPLS-TP specific requirements
explicitly added.]
[Editors' Note: Following other comments on above references, need to
produce consolidated text that references correct documents &
requirements.]
Additionally:
41 The MPLS-TP control pane SHOULD support control plane topology
and data plane topology independence.
42 The MPLS-TP control plane MUST be able to be operated independent
of any particular client or server layer control plane.
43 The MPLS-TP control plane MUST support establishing all the
connectivity patterns defined for the MPLS-TP data plane (e.g.,
unidirectional and bidirectional P2P, unidirectional P2MP, etc.)
including configuration of protection functions and any
associated maintenance functions.
44 The MPLS-TP control pane MUST support the configuration and
modification of OAM maintenance points as well as the activation/
deactivation of OAM when the transport path is established or
modified.
45 An MPLS-TP control plane MUST support operation of the recovery
functions described in Section 2.8.
46 An MPLS-TP control plane MUST scale gracefully to support a large
number of transport paths, nodes and links.
47 An MPLS-TP control plane SHOULD provide a common control
mechanism for architecturally similar operations.
2.5. Network Management (NM) requirements
For requirements related to NM functionality (Management Plane in
ITU-T terminology) for MPLS-TP, see the MPLS-TP NM requirements
document [I-D.gray-mpls-tp-nm-req].
Niven-Jenkins, et al. Expires July 7, 2009 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Requirements January 2009
2.6. Operation, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) requirements
For requirements related to OAM functionality for MPLS-TP, see the
MPLS-TP OAM requirements document
[I-D.vigoureux-mpls-tp-oam-requirements].
2.7. Network performance management (PM) requirements
For requirements related to PM functionality for MPLS-TP, see the
MPLS-TP OAM requirements document
[I-D.vigoureux-mpls-tp-oam-requirements].
2.8. Recovery & Survivability requirements
Network survivability plays a critical role in the delivery of
reliable services. Network availability is a significant contributor
to revenue and profit. Service guarantees in the form of SLAs
require a resilient network that rapidly detects facility or node
failures and restores network operation in accordance with the terms
of the SLA.
The requirements in this section use the recovery terminology defined
in RFC 4427 [RFC4427].
48 MPLS-TP MUST provide protection and restoration mechanisms.
A. Recovery techniques used for P2P and P2MP SHOULD be identical
to simplify implementation and operation. However, this MUST
NOT override any other requirement.
49 MPLS-TP recovery mechanisms MUST be applicable at various levels
throughout the network including support for link, path segment
and end-to-end path, and pseudowire segment, and end-to-end
pseudowire recovery.
50 MPLS-TP recovery paths MUST meet the SLA protection objectives of
the service.
A. MPLS-TP MUST provide mechanisms to guarantee 50ms recovery
times from the moment of fault detection in networks with
spans less than 1200 km.
B. For protection it MUST be possible to require protection of
100% of the traffic on the protected path.
C. Recovery objectives SHOULD be configurable per transport
path, and SHOULD include bandwidth and QoS.
Niven-Jenkins, et al. Expires July 7, 2009 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Requirements January 2009
51 The recovery mechanisms MUST all be applicable to any topology.
52 The recovery mechanisms MUST operate in synergy with (including
coordination of timing) the recovery mechanisms present in any
underlying server transport network (for example, Ethernet, SDH,
OTN, WDM) to avoid race conditions between the layers.
53 MPLS-TP protection mechanisms MUST support priority logic to
negotiate and accommodate coexisting requests (i.e., multiple
requests) for protection switching (e.g., administrative requests
and requests due to link/node failures).
54 MPLS-TP recovery and reversion mechanisms MUST prevent frequent
operation of recovery in the event of an intermittent defect.
[Editors' Note: ITU-T Q9/15 and Q12/15 will provide by <TBD> a
requirement for protection switching time in case of linear
protection (e.g. within 50 ms) together with a reference network.]
2.8.1. Data plane behavior requirements
General protection and survivability requirements are expressed in
terms of the behavior in the data plane.
2.8.1.1. Protection
55 MPLS-TP MUST support 1+1 Protection.
A. MPLS-TP 1+1 support MUST include bidirectional protection
switching for P2P connectivity, and this SHOULD be the
default behavior.
B. Unidirectional 1+1 protection for P2MP connectivity MUST be
supported.
C. Unidirectional 1+1 protection for P2P connectivity is NOT
REQUIRED.
56 MPLS-TP MUST support 1:n Protection (including 1:1 protection).
A. MPLS-TP 1:n support MUST include bidirectional protection
switching for P2P connectivity, and this SHOULD be the
default behavior.
B. Unidirectional 1:n protection for P2MP connectivity MUST be
supported.
Niven-Jenkins, et al. Expires July 7, 2009 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Requirements January 2009
C. Unidirectional 1:n protection for P2P connectivity is NOT
REQUIRED.
D. The action of protection switching MUST NOT cause user data
to loop. Backtracking is allowed.
57 MPLS-TP SHOULD support extra traffic carried on 1:n protection
resources when protection is not in use.
2.8.1.2. Restoration
58 The restoration LSP MUST be able to share resources with the LSP
being replaced (sometimes known as soft rerouting).
59 Restoration priority MUST be supported so that an implementation
can determine the order in which transport paths should be
restored (to minimize service restoration time as well as to gain
access to available spare capacity on the best paths).
60 Preemption priority MUST be supported to allow restoration to
displace other transport paths in the event of resource
constraint.
61 Recovery mechanisms MUST be bidirectional.
2.8.1.3. Sharing of protection resources
62 MPLS-TP SHOULD support 1:n (including 1:1) shared mesh
restoration.
63 MPLS-TP MUST support the sharing of protection bandwidth by
allowing best effort traffic.
64 MPLS-TP MUST support the definition of shared protection groups
to allow the coordination of protection actions resulting from
triggers caused by events at different locations in the network.
65 MPLS-TP MUST support sharing of protection resources such that
protection paths that are known not to be required concurrently
can share the same resources.
2.8.1.4. Reversion
66 MPLS-TP protection mechanisms MUST support revertive and non-
revertive behavior. Reversion MUST be the default behavior.
Niven-Jenkins, et al. Expires July 7, 2009 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Requirements January 2009
67 MPLS-TP restoration mechanisms MAY support revertive and non-
revertive behavior.
2.8.2. Triggers for protection, restoration, and reversion
Recovery actions may be triggered from different places as follows:
68 MPLS-TP MUST support physical layer fault indication triggers.
69 MPLS-TP MUST support OAM-based triggers.
70 MPLS-TP MUST support management plane triggers (e.g., forced
switch, etc.).
71 There MUST be a mechanism to allow administrative recovery
actions to be distinguished from recovery actions initiated by
other triggers.
72 Where a control plane is present, MPLS-TP SHOULD support control
plane triggers.
2.8.3. Management plane operation of protection and restoration
All functions described here are for control by the operator.
73 It MUST be possible to configure of protection paths and
protection-to-working path relationships (sometimes known as
protection groups).
74 There MUST be support for pre-calculation of recovery paths.
75 There MUST be support for pre-provisioning of recovery paths.
76 The following administrative control MUST be supported:
A. lockout
B. forced switchover
C. manual switchover
D. simulated fault
77 There MUST be support for the configuration of timers used for
recovery operation.
Niven-Jenkins, et al. Expires July 7, 2009 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Requirements January 2009
78 Restoration resources MAY be pre-planned and selected a priori,
or computed after failure occurrence.
79 When preemption is supported for recovery purposes, it MUST be
possible for the operator to configure it.
80 The management plane MUST provide indications of protection
events and triggers.
81 The management plane MUST allow the current protection status of
all transport paths to be determined.
2.8.4. Control plane and in-band OAM operation of recovery
82 The MPLS-TP control plane (which is not mandatory in an MPLS-TP
implementation) MUST support:
A. establishment and maintenance of all recovery entities and
functions
B. signaling of administrative control
C. protection state coordination (PSC)
83 In-band OAM MAY be used for:
A. signaling of administrative control
B. protection state coordination
2.8.5. Topology-specific recovery mechanisms
84 MPLS-TP MAY support recovery mechanisms that are optimized for
specific network topologies. These mechanisms MUST be
interoperable with the mechanisms defined for arbitrary topology
(mesh) networks to enable protection of end-to-end transport
paths.
Note that topology-specific recovery mechanisms are subject to the
development of requirements using the normal IETF process.
2.8.5.1. Ring protection
Several service providers have expressed a high level of interest in
operating MPLS-TP in ring topologies and require a high level of
survivability function in these topologies. The requirements listed
below have been collected from these service providers and from the
ITU-T.
Niven-Jenkins, et al. Expires July 7, 2009 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Requirements January 2009
The main objective in considering a specific topology (such as a
ring) is to determine whether it is possible to optimize any
mechanisms such that the performance of those mechanisms within the
topology is significantly better than the performance of the generic
mechanisms in the same topology. The benefits of such optimizations
are traded against the costs of developing, implementing, deploying,
and operating the additional optimized mechanisms noting that the
generic mechanisms MUST continue to be supported.
Within the context of recovery in MPLS-TP networks, the optimization
criteria considered in ring topologies are as follows:
a. Minimize the number of OAM MEs that are needed to trigger the
recovery operation - less than are required by other recovery
mechanisms.
b. Minimize the number of elements of recovery in the ring - less
than are required by other recovery mechanisms.
c. Minimize the number of labels required for the protection paths
across the ring - less than are required by other recovery
mechanisms.
d. Minimize the amount of management plane transactions during a
maintenance operation (e.g., ring upgrade) - less than are
required by other recovery mechanisms.
It may be observed that this list is fully compatible with the
generic requirements expressed above, and that no requirements that
are specific to ring topologies have been identified. [Editors'
Note: This statement is to be confirmed at the end of the work and
may be removed if it does not hold.]
In the list of requirements below, those requirements that are
generic are marked "[G]"; those that are Ring-specific are marked
"[R]". [Editors' Note: Still need to mark up the requirements below
as [R] and [G].]
85 MPLS-TP MUST include recovery mechanisms that operate in any
single ring supported in MPLS-TP, and continue to operate within
the single rings even when the rings are interconnected.
86 When a network is constructed from interconnected rings, MPLS-TP
MUST support recovery mechanisms that protect user data that
traverses more than one ring. This includes the possibility of
failure of the ring-interconnect nodes and links.
Niven-Jenkins, et al. Expires July 7, 2009 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Requirements January 2009
87 MPLS-TP recovery in a ring MUST protect unidirectional and
bidirectional P2P transport paths.
88 MPLS-TP recovery in a ring MUST protect unidirectional P2MP
transport paths.
89 MPLS-TP 1+1 and 1:1 protection in a ring MUST support switching
time within 50 ms from the moment of fault detection in a network
with a 16 nodes ring with less than 1200 km of fiber. This is
NOT REQUIRED when extra traffic is present.
[Editor note: the opinion of some people in the T103 room in Geneva
is that support for extra traffic is NOT REQUIRED in ring topologies.
It may be further NOT REQUIRED in any topology. This is for further
discussion especially with respect to G.8131.]
90 The protection switching time in a ring MUST be independent of
the number of LSPs crossing the ring.
91 Recovery actions in a ring MUST be data plane functions
triggered by different elements of control. The triggers are
configured by management or control planes and are subject to
configurable policy.
92 The configuration and operation of recovery mechanisms in a ring
MUST scale well with:
A. the number of transport paths (must be better than linear
scaling)
B. the number of nodes on the ring (must be at least as good as
linear scaling)
C. the number of ring interconnects (must be at least as good
as linear scaling)
93 MPLS-TP recovery in ring topologies MAY support multiple
failures without reconfiguring the protection actions.
94 Recovery techniques used in a ring MUST NOT prevent the ring
from being connected to a general MPLS-TP network in any
arbitrary way, and MUST NOT prevent the operation of recovery
techniques in the rest of the network.
95 MPLS-TP Recovery mechanisms applicable to a ring MUST be equally
applicable in physical and logical rings.
Niven-Jenkins, et al. Expires July 7, 2009 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Requirements January 2009
96 Recovery techniques in a ring SHOULD be identical to those in
general networks to simplify implementation. However, this MUST
NOT override any other requirement.
97 Recovery techniques in logical and physical rings SHOULD be
identical to simplify implementation and operation. However,
this MUST NOT override any other requirement.
98 The default recovery scheme in a ring MUST be bidirectional
recovery in order to simplify the recovery operation.
99 The recovery mechanism in a ring MUST support revertive
switching, which MUST be the default behaviour. This allows
optimization of the use of the ring resources, and restores the
preferred quality conditions for normal traffic (e.g., delay)
when the recovery mechanism is no longer needed.
100 The recovery mechanisms in a ring MUST support ways to allow
administrative protection switching, to be distinguished from
protection switching initiated by other triggers.
101 It MUST be possible to disable protection mechanisms on selected
links in a ring (depending on operator's need).
[Editor note: This requirement was originated from ITU-T Q9/15 and
needs further clarification. If it means that a lockout is required
for use on specific spans, then this is already covered by a general
requirement, and this requirement could be deleted or rewritten for
clarity. On the other hand, there may be another meaning in which
case the requirement needs to be rewritten.]
102 MPLS-TP recovery mechanisms in a ring MUST include a mechanism
to allow an implementation to handle coexisting requests (i.e.,
multiple requests - not necessarily arriving simultaneously) for
protection switching based on priority.
103 MPLS-TP recovery and reversion mechanisms in a ring MUST offer a
way to prevent frequent operation of recovery in the event of an
intermittent defect.
104 MPLS-TP MUST support the sharing of protection bandwidth in a
ring by allowing best effort traffic.
105 MPLS-TP MUST support sharing of ring protection resources such
that protection paths that are known not to be required
concurrently can share the same resources.
Niven-Jenkins, et al. Expires July 7, 2009 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Requirements January 2009
106 MUST support the coordination of triggers caused by events at
different locations in a ring. Note that this is the ring
equivalent of the definition of shared protection groups.
2.9. QoS requirements
Carriers require advanced traffic management capabilities to enforce
and guarantee the QoS parameters of customers' SLAs.
Quality of service mechanisms are REQUIRED in an MPLS-TP network to
ensure:
107 Support for differentiated services and different traffic types
with traffic class separation associated with different traffic.
108 Prioritization of critical services.
109 Enabling the provisioning and the guarantee of Service Level
Specifications (SLS), with support for hard and relative end-to-
end bandwidth guaranteed.
110 Support of services, which are sensitive to jitter and delay.
111 Guarantee of fair access, within a particular class, to shared
resources.
112 Guaranteed resources for in-band control and management plane
traffic regardless of the amount of data plane traffic.
113 Carriers are provided with the capability to efficiently support
service demands over the MPLS-TP network. This MUST include
support for a flexible bandwidth allocation scheme.
[Editors' Note: Should we refer here to the requirements specified in
RFC 2702?]
2.10. Security requirements
For a description of the security threats relevant in the context of
MPLS and GMPLS and the defensive techniques to combat those threats
see the Security Framework for MPLS & GMPLS Networks
[I-D.draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework].
3. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request of IANA.
Niven-Jenkins, et al. Expires July 7, 2009 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Requirements January 2009
Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
RFC.
4. Security Considerations
For a description of the security threats relevant in the context of
MPLS and GMPLS and the defensive techniques to combat those threats
see the Security Framework for MPLS & GMPLS Networks
[I-D.draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework].
5. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank all members of the teams (the Joint
Working Team, the MPLS Interoperability Design Team in the IETF, and
the T-MPLS Ad Hoc Group in the ITU-T) involved in the definition and
specification of MPLS Transport Profile.
The authors would also like to thank Loa Andersson, Lou Berger, Italo
Busi, John Drake, Adrian Farrel, Neil Harrison, Wataru Imajuku,
Julien Meuric, Tom Nadeau, Hiroshi Ohta and Tomonori Takeda for their
comments and enhancements to the text.
An ad hoc discussion group consisting of Stewart Bryant, Italo Busi,
Andrea Digiglio, Li Fang, Adrian Farrel, Jia He, Huub van Helvoort,
Feng Huang, Harald Kullman, Han Li, Hao Long and Nurit Sprecher
provided valuable input to the requirements for deployment and
survivability in ring topologies.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[I-D.gray-mpls-tp-nm-req]
Lam, H., Mansfield, S., and E. Gray, "MPLS TP Network
Management Requirements", draft-gray-mpls-tp-nm-req-01
(work in progress), July 2008.
[I-D.vigoureux-mpls-tp-oam-requirements]
Vigoureux, M., Ward, D., and M. Betts, "Requirements for
OAM in MPLS Transport Networks",
draft-vigoureux-mpls-tp-oam-requirements-00 (work in
progress), July 2008.
Niven-Jenkins, et al. Expires July 7, 2009 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Requirements January 2009
6.2. Informative References
[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture",
RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC3985] Bryant, S. and P. Pate, "Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-
Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985, March 2005.
[RFC4139] Papadimitriou, D., Drake, J., Ash, J., Farrel, A., and L.
Ong, "Requirements for Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Signaling
Usage and Extensions for Automatically Switched Optical
Network (ASON)", RFC 4139, July 2005.
[RFC4258] Brungard, D., "Requirements for Generalized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (GMPLS) Routing for the Automatically
Switched Optical Network (ASON)", RFC 4258, November 2005.
[RFC4427] Mannie, E. and D. Papadimitriou, "Recovery (Protection and
Restoration) Terminology for Generalized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4427, March 2006.
[RFC5212] Shiomoto, K., Papadimitriou, D., Le Roux, JL., Vigoureux,
M., and D. Brungard, "Requirements for GMPLS-Based Multi-
Region and Multi-Layer Networks (MRN/MLN)", RFC 5212,
July 2008.
[RFC5331] Aggarwal, R., Rekhter, Y., and E. Rosen, "MPLS Upstream
Label Assignment and Context-Specific Label Space",
RFC 5331, August 2008.
[I-D.draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework]
Fang, L. and M. Behringer, "Security Framework for MPLS
and GMPLS Networks",
draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework-03 (work
in progress), July 2008.
[ITU.Y2611.2006]
International Telecommunications Union, "High-level
architecture of future packet-based networks", ITU-
T Recommendation Y.2611, December 2006.
[ITU.Y1401.2008]
International Telecommunications Union, "Principles of
interworking", ITU-T Recommendation Y.1401, February 2008.
Niven-Jenkins, et al. Expires July 7, 2009 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Requirements January 2009
[ITU.G805.2000]
International Telecommunications Union, "Generic
functional architecture of transport networks", ITU-
T Recommendation G.805, March 2000.
Authors' Addresses
Ben Niven-Jenkins (editor)
BT
208 Callisto House, Adastral Park
Ipswich, Suffolk IP5 3RE
UK
Email: benjamin.niven-jenkins@bt.com
Deborah Brungard (editor)
AT&T
Rm. D1-3C22 - 200 S. Laurel Ave.
Middletown, NJ 07748
USA
Email: dbrungard@att.com
Malcolm Betts (editor)
Nortel Networks
3500 Carling Avenue
Ottawa, Ontario K2H 8E9
Canada
Email: betts01@nortel.com
Nurit Sprecher
Nokia Siemens Networks
3 Hanagar St. Neve Ne'eman B
Hod Hasharon, 45241
Israel
Email: nurit.sprecher@nsn.com
Niven-Jenkins, et al. Expires July 7, 2009 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Requirements January 2009
Satoshi Ueno
NTT
Email: satoshi.ueno@ntt.com
Niven-Jenkins, et al. Expires July 7, 2009 [Page 26]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 05:30:07 |