One document matched: draft-shiomoto-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-reqs-00.txt
Network Working Group Kohei Shiomoto
Internet Draft (NTT)
draft-shiomoto-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-reqs-00.txt Dimitri Papadimitriou
Expires: April 2005 (Alcatel)
Jean-Louis Le Roux
(France Telecom)
Martin Vigoureux
(Alcatel)
Deborah Brungard
(AT&T)
October 2004
Requirements for GMPLS-based multi-region and multi-layer networks
draft-shiomoto-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-reqs-00.txt
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
of section 3 of RFC 3667. 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 become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
RFC 3668.
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.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
Most of the initial efforts on Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) have been
related to environments hosting devices with a single switching
capability, that is, one data plane switching layer. The complexity
raised by the control of such data planes is similar to that seen in
classical IP/MPLS networks.
Shiomoto et al Expires April 2005 1
Requirements for GMPLS-based multi-region and multi-layer networks
October 2004
GMPLS can provide a comprehensive framework for the control of a
network consisting of network elements based on different switching
technologies, which we call a –multi-region• network (MRN). GMPLS can
also facilitate the control of layered networks where connections in
a higher layer network are facilitated by a lower layer network. This
draft defines a framework for GMPLS-based multi-region and multi-
layer networks, and lists a set of functional requirements.
1. Introduction
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) extends MPLS to handle multiple switching
technologies: packet switching, layer-two switching, TDM switching,
wavelength switching, and fiber switching (see [GMPLS-ARCH]). The
Interface Switching Capability concept is introduced for those
switching technologies and is designated as follows: PSC (packet
switch capable), L2SC (Layer-2 switch capable), TDM (Time Division
Multiplex capable), LSC (lambda switch capable), and FSC (fiber
switch capable).
Service providers operate networks consisting of network elements
with different switching capabilities such as routers, layer-two
switches, TDM cross-connects, optical cross-connects, and fiber
switches. The networks consist of several technology domains, each of
which uses the same switching capability. The term –region• is used
to distinguish these technology domains [HIER].
Since GMPLS provides a comprehensive framework for the control of
different switching technologies, the service providerÝs network can
be controlled in a unified framework and therefore rapid service
provisioning and efficient network usage are achievable. A network
consisting of network elements based on different switching
technologies controlled by a unified GMPLS control plane is referred
to as a –multi-region• network (MRN) in this document.
In GMPLS-based multi-region networks, TE-links with different
switching capabilities are consolidated into a single traffic
engineering database (TED). Since TE-links with different switching
capabilities are consolidated into a single TED, a path across
multiple regions can be computed using the TED. Thus optimization of
network resource across the multiple regions can be sought.
Optimization can take place in across multiple regions. Consider, for
example, a network consisting of IP routers and TDM cross-connects.
Assume that a packet-level LSP is routed between source and
destination IP routers, and that the LSP can be routed across the
PSC-region (i.e., utilizing only resources of the IP level topology).
If the performance objective for the LSP is not satisfied, new TE-
links may be created between the IP routers across the TDM-region and
the LSP can be routed over those links. Further, even if the LSP can
be successfully established across PSC-region, TE-links across the
TDM-region between the IP routers may be established and used if
Shiomoto et al Expires April 2005 2
Requirements for GMPLS-based multi-region and multi-layer networks
October 2004
doing so leaves more network resource available (e.g., link bandwidth,
and adaptation port between regions) across the multiple regions.
A service providerÝs network may be divided into different network
layers. The customerÝs network is considered the highest layer
network, and interfaces to the highest layer of the service
providerÝs network. Connectivity across the highest layer of the
service providerÝs network may be provided with support from networks
of successively lower layers. Network layers are commonly arranged
according to the switching capabilities of the devices in the
networks so that, for example, there may be layer one networks (TDM,
LSC and FSC) supporting layer two networks (L2SC) supporting layer
three networks (IP and MPLS). The support relationship is, however, a
client-server relationship where the lower layer provides a service
for the higher layer using the TE links of the lower layer, and so
the layering relationship is actually administrative rather than
dependent on the switching capabilities of the networks.
A ĺmulti-layerÝ network is, therefore, the general case of a multi-
region network which must embrace all of the requirements for regions
of different switching capabilities, but must also support the
arbitrary layering of networks.
More generally, such multi-layer services can be provided by the
combination of GMPLS based multi-region networks and non-GMPLS based
networks such as legacy IP and MPLS/IP networks. We call this a
(general) multi-layer service network.
This document describes the requirements for the multi-region network
and the multi-layer service network. The rest of this document is
organized as follows. In Section 3, the key concepts for the
Generalized MPLS-based multi-region and multi-layer service networks
are described. In Section 4, the functional requirements are listed.
There is no intention to specify solution specific elements in this
document. The applicability of existing GMPLS protocol to MRN, and
any protocol extensions, will be addressed in separate documents.
2. Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
3. Key mechanisms in GMPLS-based multi-region and multi-layer networks
3.1 The Multi-region network (MRN)
Example of MRN network, which consists of PSC, TDM and LSC. is
illustrated in Figure 1. The concept of region is by nature
hierarchical. PSC, TDM, and LSC are defined from the upper to the
lower regions in Figure 1. Network elements with different switching
technologies in the MRN are controlled by a unified GMPLS control
Shiomoto et al Expires April 2005 3
Requirements for GMPLS-based multi-region and multi-layer networks
October 2004
plane. When a LSP is crossing a region boundary from the upper to the
lower regions, the LSP is be nested in a lower-region FA.
..................................................
: .................................. :
: : ................. : :
: : : : : :
: PSC : TDM : LSC : : :
: +--+ : +--+ : +--+ +--+ : +--+ : +--+ :
: |P1|-----|T1|-----|L1|---|L2|-----|T2|----|P2| :
: +--+ : +--+ : +--+ +--+ : +--+ : +--+ :
: : ................. : :
: .................................. :
..................................................
Figure 1: Example of .ulti-region network
3.2 Interface switching capability
The Interface Switching Capability (ISC) concept is introduced in
GMPLS to support various kinds of switching technology in a unified
way. An ISC refers to the ability of a data switch to forward data of
a particular type. PSC, L2SC, TDM, LSC, and FSC are defined. Each end
of the link in a GMPLS network is associated with at least one
switching capability. For example, PSC is associated with an
interface which can delineate IP/MPLS packets (e.g., a routerÝs
interface) while LSC is associated with an interface which can switch
individual wavelengths multiplexed in a fiber link (e.g., an OXCÝs
interface). Every link in the TE database has switching capabilities
at both ends.
An interface may have multiple interface switching capabilities. A
router has only interfaces with a single switching capability (PSC)
while a hybrid node has a mixture of interfaces with single and
multiple switching capabilities.
3.3 Horizontal and vertical integration
Two types of network elements are defined in the multi-region
network: plain nodes and hybrid nodes. A plain node has only a single
switching capability configured on its any one of its interfaces but
may have interfaces with different switching capabilities.
On the other hand, the hybrid node has interfaces with single and
multiple switching capabilities, and interfaces of the same hybrid
node may have different switching capabilities.
3.3.1 Plain node model
The MRN network can consist of just plain nodes. PSC, L2SC, TDM, LSC,
and FSC plain nodes are deployed in the MRN network (See Figure 2).
Note that the node, which has links of various different switching
capabilities, is still a plain node as long as the end point of each
link is associated with a single switching capability. For example,
the node TL2 in Figure 2 is a plain node, which has links associated
Shiomoto et al Expires April 2005 4
Requirements for GMPLS-based multi-region and multi-layer networks
October 2004
with TDM and links associated with LSC. At the region boundary, the
interface switching capabilities of the ends of the link are
different. When an LSP crosses the boundary from the upper to the
lower regions, it is nested in a lower-region FA or can be converted
to a lower-region LSP.
.....................................................................
: ..................................................... :
: : .................................... : :
: : : ................... : : :
: PSC : TDM : LSC : FSC : : : :
: +--+ : +--+ : +--+ : +--+ +--+ : +--+ : +--+ : +--+ :
: |P1|_____|T1|_____|L1|_____|F1|____|F3| ____|L3|_____|T3|____|P3| :
: +--+ : +--+ : +--+ : +--+ +--+ : +--+ : +--+ : +--+ :
: | : | : | : | | : | : | : | :
: | : | : | : | | : | : | : | :
: +--+ : +-----------+ : +--+ +--+ : +--+ : +--+ : +--+ :
: |P2|_____| TL2 |_____|F2|____|F4| ____|L4|_____|T4|____|P4| :
: +--+ : +-----------+ : +--+ +--+ : +--+ : +--+: +--+ :
: : : ................... : : ;
: : .................................... : :
: ................................................... :
.....................................................................
Figure 2: Plain node MRN model.
3.3.2 Hybrid node interface capabilities
Figure 3 shows an example of a hybrid node. The hybrid node has two
switching elements, which have, for instance, interface switching
capabilities PSC and TDM. It has two external interfaces (Link1 and
Link2), which are directly connected to the switching element of PSC.
The two switching elements are interconnected via an internal
interface, which is not disclosed outside the network element. The
internal interface is used to facilitate –adaptation• between
different switching capabilities: PSC and TDM. By cross-connecting
port #a and port #b in the TDM switching element, Link 1 is made
capable of PSC switching and can no longer switch TDM.
Network element
.............................
: -------- :
: | PSC | :
: +--<->---| | :
: | -------- :
TDM : | ---------- :
+PSC : +--<->--|#a TDM | :
Link1 ------------<->--|#b | :
Link2 ------------<->--|#c | :
: ---------- :
:............................
Figure 3. Hybrid node.
Shiomoto et al Expires April 2005 5
Requirements for GMPLS-based multi-region and multi-layer networks
October 2004
3.3.3 Horizontal and vertical integration
Horizontal interaction is defined as the protocol exchange between
network elements that support a single common switching technology
(i.e. switching capability). For instance, the control plane
interactions between two LSC network elements is an example of
horizontal interaction. Normal GMPLS protocol operations handle
horizontal interactions, but of particular interest is the case where
the interaction takes place across a domain boundary such as between
two routing areas that support the same switching technology.
Vertical interaction is defined as the collaborative mechanisms
within a network element that is capable of supporting more than one
switching technology. This enables a device to connect together two
distinct switching domains (for example, a PSC domain and a LSC
domain). Such a concept is useful in order to construct a framework
that facilitates efficient network resource usage and rapid service
provisioning in carrier's networks that are based on multiple
switching technologies.
Networks where separate domains of switching capability exist and are
controllable through vertical interaction are termed "multi-layer"
networks.
Whereas the multi-region concept allows for the operation of one
network switching type over another switching type (for example, the
use of a PSC Forwarding Adjacency over an LSC network), the multi-
layer concept offers a greater degree of control and interworking
including (but not limited too):
- the dynamic establishment of FAs
- the provisioning of end-to-end, multi-technology LSPs using
data plane adaptation
- the dynamic establishment of multi-technology stitched LSPs
using data plane adaptation.
3.4 Triggered signaling
When a LSP crosses the boundary from an upper to a lower region, it
may be nested in or stitched to a lower-region LSP. If such an LSP
does not exist, the LSP may be established dynamically. Such a
mechanism is referred to as "triggered signaling".
3.5 Forwarding adjacency (FA)
Once an LSP across a lower layer is created, it can be advertised as
a TE-link called a Forwarding Adjacency (FA), allowing other nodes to
use the LAP as a TE links for their path computation [HIER]. The FA
is a useful and powerful tool for improving the scalability of GMPLS
Traffic Engineering (TE) capable networks.
Shiomoto et al Expires April 2005 6
Requirements for GMPLS-based multi-region and multi-layer networks
October 2004
The aggregation of TE Label Switched Paths (TE-LSPs) enables the
creation of a vertical (nested) TE-LSP Hierarchy. A set of FAs across
or within a lower region can be used by a higher region as part of
the path computation process, and higher region LSPs may be carried
across the FAs (just as they are carried across any TE link). This
process of requires either the nesting of LSPs through a hierarchical
process [HIER] or stitching at the region boundary. In the MRN, since
more than one higher region paths computation and modification can
occur, FAs in the various regions are treated in a simple and
efficient way. A MRN traffic engineering database (TED) is a set of
FA information from multiple different regions. An FAÝs region is
identified by the interface switching capability attached to the link
state advertisement associated with the FA [GMPLS-ROUTING].
3.6 Virtual network topology (VNT)
A set of lower-region FAs provides a set of information for efficient
path handling in the upper-region of the MRN, or provides a virtual
network topology to the upper-region. For instance, a set of FAs,
each of which is instantiated by an LSC LSP, provides a virtual
network topology to the PSC region, assuming that the PSC region is
connected to the LSC region. The virtual network topology is
configured by setting up or tearing down the LSC LSPs. By using GMPLS
signaling and routing protocols, the virtual network topology can be
easily adapted to traffic demands.
By reconfiguring the virtual network topology according to traffic
demand between source and destination node pairs, network performance
factors, such as maximum link utilization and residual capacity of
the network, can be optimized [MAMLTE]. Reconfiguration is performed
by computing the new VNT from the traffic demand matrix and
optionally from the current VNT. Exact details are outside the scope
of this document. However, this method MAY be tailored according to
the service provider's policy regarding network performance and
quality of service (delay, loss/disruption, utilization, residual
capacity, reliability).
4. Requirements
4.1. Requirements for multi-region TE
4.1.1 Scalability
The MRN relies on a unified routing model. The Traffic Engineering
Database in each LSR will be populated with TE-links from all regions.
This may lead to a huge amount of information that has to be flooded
and stored within the network. Furthermore, path computation delays,
which may be of huge importance during restoration, will depend on
the size of the TE Database.
Shiomoto et al Expires April 2005 7
Requirements for GMPLS-based multi-region and multi-layer networks
October 2004
Thus MRN routing mechanisms MUST be designed to scale well with an
increase of any of the following:
- Number of nodes
- Number of TE-links (including FA-LSP)
- Number of LSPs
- Number of regions
4.1.2 FA link resource utilization
It MUST be possible to utilize network resources efficiently.
Particularly, resource usage in each region SHOULD be optimized as a
whole (i.e. across all regions), in a coordinated manner. The number
of lower-region FA-LSPs carrying upper-region LSPs SHOULD be
minimized. Redundant lower-region FA-LSPs SHOULD be avoided (except
for protection purpose).
4.1.2.1 FA release and setup
Statistical multiplexing can only be employed in PSC and L2SC regions.
The use of a PSC or L2SC FA-LSP may or may not consume the full
bandwidth of the FA-LSP. On the other hand, a TDM, LSC, or FSC FA-LSP
always consumes the fixed bandwidth for the LSP as long as it exists
(and is fully instantiated) because statistical multiplexing is not
available.
If there is low traffic demand, some FA-LSPs, which do not carry any
LSPs may be released so that resources are released. Alternatively,
the FA-LSPs may be retained for future usage. Release or retention of
underutilized FA-LSPs is a policy decision.
As part of the re-optimization process, the MRN solution MUST allow
rerouting of FA-LSPs while keeping interface identifiers of FA links
unchanged.
Additional FAs MAY also be created based on policy, which might
consider residual resources and the change of traffic demand across
the region. By creating the new FAs, the network performance such as
maximum residual capacity may be improved.
As the number of FAs grows, the residual resource may decrease. In
this case, re-optimization MAY be invoked according the policy.
4.1.2.2 Virtual FAs
If FAs are used to enable connectivity over part or all of the lower-
region, it may be considered disadvantageous to fully instantiate
(i.e. pre-provision) the FA-LSPs since this may reserve bandwidth
within the lower-region network that could be used for other LSPs in
the absence of the upper-region traffic.
However, in order that the upper-region can route traffic across the
lower-region, the FA links MAY (this is not a MUST requirement as you
Shiomoto et al Expires April 2005 8
Requirements for GMPLS-based multi-region and multi-layer networks
October 2004
can route an upper region LSP into a lower region based on lower
region TE-links, even if there is no FA) still be advertised into the
lower-region as TE links. Such FA links that represent the
possibility of an FA-LSP are termed "virtual FAs".
If an upper-region LSP that makes use of a virtual FA is set up, the
underlying FA-LSP MUST be immediately signaled if it has not already
been signaled.
If virtual FAs are used in place of FAs, the TE links across the
lower-region can remain stable using pre-computed paths while wastage
of bandwidth within the lower-region, and unnecessary reservation of
adaptation ports at the border nodes is avoided.
The set of the virtual FAs defines the virtual topology across the
lower region. The solution is expected to deliver the following
mechanism in terms of the build-up of virtual topology operations
taking into account the (forecast) traffic demand and available
resource in the lower-region. The virtual topology MAY be modified
dynamically (by adding or removing virtual FAs) according to the
change of the (forecast) traffic demand and the available resource in
the lower-region.
The virtual topology can be changed by setting up and/or tearing down
virtual FA-LSPs as well as by changes to real links and to real FAs.
The maximum number of FAs that can be soft provisioned on a given
resources SHOULD be well-engineered. How to design the virtual
topology and its changes is out of scope of this document.
4.1.3 FA LSP Attribute inheritance
FA TE-Link parameters SHOULD be inherited from FA-LSP parameters.
This includes:
- Interface Switching Capability
- TE metric
- Max LSP bandwidth per preemption priority
- Max Reservable bandwidth
- Protection attribute
- Min LSP bandwidth (depending on the Switching Capability)
Inheritance rules MUST be applied based on specific policies.
Particular attention should be given to the inheritance of TE metric
and protection attributes.
4.1.4 Verify the FA before it enters service
When the FA is created, it SHOULD be verified before it enters the
in-service state. Data-plane connectivity, performance SHOULD be
examined.
4.1.5 Disruption minimization
Shiomoto et al Expires April 2005 9
Requirements for GMPLS-based multi-region and multi-layer networks
October 2004
When reconfiguring the virtual network topology according to the
traffic demand change, the upper-region LSP may be disrupted. Such
disruption MUST be minimized.
When residual resource decreases to a certain level, some FAs may be
released according to policies. Ideally, only FAs that are not
carrying LSPs would be released, but in some cases it may be
necessary to release FAs that are carrying traffic.
4.1.6 Path computation re-optimization stability
When the virtual network topology is reconfigured, the path
computation over the virtual network topology may be affected (re-
optimized). The re-optimization of the path computation should be
carefully controlled when the virtual network topology is
reconfigured.
The path computation is dependent on the network topology and
associated link state. The path computation stability of upper region
may be impaired if the Virtual Network Topology frequently changes
and/or if the status and TE parameters (TE metric for instance) of
links in the Virtual Network Topology changes frequently.
In this context, robustness of the Virtual Network Topology is
defined as the capability to smooth changes that may occur and avoid
their subsequent propagation. Changes of the Virtual Network Topology
may be caused by the creation and/or deletion of several LSPs.
Creation and deletion of LSPs may be triggered by adjacent regions or
through operational actions to meet change of traffic demand. Routing
robustness should be traded with adaptability with respect to the
change of incoming traffic requests.
A full mesh of LSPs may be created between every pair of border nodes
of the PSC region. The merit of a full mesh of PSC FAs is that it
provides stability to the PSC-level routing. That is, the forwarding
table of an PSC-LSR is not impacted by re-routing changes within the
lower-region (e.g., TDM). Further, there is always full PSC
reachability and immediate access to bandwidth to support PSC LSPs.
But it also has significant drawbacks, since it requires the
maintenance of n^2 RSVP-TE sessions, which may be quite CPU and
memory consuming (scalability impact).
4.1.7 Computing paths with and without nested signaling
Path computation may take into account region boundaries when
computing a path for an LSP. For example, path computation may
restrict the path taken by an LSP to only the links whose interface
switching capability is PSC-1.
Shiomoto et al Expires April 2005 10
Requirements for GMPLS-based multi-region and multi-layer networks
October 2004
Interface switching capability is used as a constraint in computing
the path. A TDM-LSP is routed over the topology composed of links,
both of whose ends has TDM switching capability.
In Figure . a TDM-LSP is routed from LSR-P1, through TDM_SW-T1 and
TDM_SW-T2, to LSR-P2. The path for the TDM-LSP is composed of links,
both of whose ends has TDM switching capability. Once the TDM LSP is
set up, it is advertised as an FA-LSP, both ends of which are PSC. In
calculating the path for the PSC-LSP, the TE database is filtered to
include the link, both ends of which include only PSC. In this way
hierarchical routing of the PSC-LSP and TDM-LSP is done by using a TE
database filtered with respect to switching capability.
..................................
: .................. :
: : : :
: PSC : TDM : :
: +--+ : +--+ +--+ : +--+ :
: |P1|-----|T1|-----|T2|----|P2| :
: +--+ : +--+ +--+ : +--+ :
: : : :
: .................. :
..................................
Figure . Path computation in MRN.
There may be a case, in which we can set up the LSP if we build new
lower-region LSPs along the computed path. Suppose that we set up the
TDM-LSP between P1 and P2 in Figure .. The TDM-LSP is routed over
the path T1-L1-L2-T2. At this time, there is no direct link between
T1 and T2. Then, the LSC-LSP is set up between T1 and T2. The LSC-LSP
setup request (between T1 and T2) is triggered by the TDM-LSP setup
request (between P1 and P2). If triggered signaling is allowed, the
path computation mechanism may produce a route containing multiple
regions.
..................................................
: .................................. :
: : ................. : :
: : : : : :
: PSC : TDM : LSC : : :
: +--+ : +--+ : +--+ +--+ : +--+ : +--+ :
: |P1|-----|T1|-----|L1|---|L2|-----|T2|----|P2| :
: +--+ : +--+ : +--+ +--+ : +--+ : +--+ :
: : ................. : :
: .................................. :
..................................................
Figure . Path computation in MRN.
Shiomoto et al Expires April 2005 11
Requirements for GMPLS-based multi-region and multi-layer networks
October 2004
4.1.8 Handling both vertical and horizontal integration
The MRN can consist of plain and hybrid nodes. The path computation
mechanism in the MRN SHOULD be able to compute the paths consisting
of plain and hybrid nodes.
Recall the plain node model shown in Figure 2. The switching
capability of both ends of a TE-link may or may not be the same. For
a TE-link between an LSR and a TDM switch, the switching capability
of the end-point on the LSR-side is PSC while the one on the TDM
switch-side is TDM. For a TE-link between two TDM switches, the
switching capability of the both end-points is TDM.
The links of the hybrid node shown in Figure 3 are advertised as TE-
links with multiple interface switching capabilities: PSC and TDM.
The hybrid node is used as a transit node for a TDM-region. At the
same time, the hybrid node is used as an ingress, egress, or transit
node for the PSC-region.
4.1.9 Advertisement of the available adaptation resource
A node, hosting multiple ISCs, is required to hold and advertise
resource information on its internal links.
For example, if the hybrid node shown in Figure 3 is used as an
ingress or egress node, a cross-connection is made between the port
#a and the port #b in the TDM switching element.
Once the cross-connection is made, Link 1 is PSC not TDM capable.
Link1 is advertised as a new FA with a single switching capability:
PSC. After that, there is no available internal link to connect port
#b to the PSC. Link 2 is still advertised as being capable of TDM and
PSC, but there is no available resource to provide PSC.
Therefore, within multi-region networks, the advertisement of the so-
called adaptation capability to terminate LSPs is required, as it
provides critical information when performing multi-region path
computation.
4.2. Requirements for multi-layer service
4.2.1 Support multiple service networks
Since service providers sometime provide multiple different services
in terms of contracts, areas of provision, access technologies, etc.
even though the provided services belong to the same layer, multi-
layer service networks should support the capability to accommodate
multiple service networks within a single server network.
4.2.2 Support multiple layer networks
Shiomoto et al Expires April 2005 12
Requirements for GMPLS-based multi-region and multi-layer networks
October 2004
Since service providers sometime provide multiple different services
in terms of layers to efficiently to support such different
services, multi-layer service networks should support the capability
to accomodate multiple different layers service networks within a
single server network.
4.2.3 Address space separation for different service networks
Especially, since service networks may follow different administratic
policies and/or organizations, the control technlogies should be able
to be different. One specific difference is in address spaces.
4.2.4 Autonomous control of optical path setup/teardown
Modification and re-optimization of LSPs is not only for GMPLS based
multi region networks. This is also for multi-layer network where
the providor network is based on such GMPLS capability to be utilised
on the requirements from service networks which may not be capable of
GMPLS. Consider examples on traffic demands can be measured even in
the legacy service network to determin the need of creation and
modification of provider GMPLS LSPs.
5. Security Considerations
The current version of .his document does not introduce any new
security considerations as it only lists a set of requirements. In
the futrue versions, new security requirements may be added.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
6.2. Informative References
[MPLSGMPLS] D. Brungard, J. L. Roux, E. Oki, D. Papadimitriou, D.
Shimazaki, K. Shiomoto, "Migrating from IP/MPLS to GMPLS networks,"
draft-oki-ccamp-gmpls-ip-interworking-03.txt (work in progress) July
2004.
[GMPLS-ROUTING] K. Kompella and Y. Rekhter, "Routing Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching," draft-ietf-
ccamp-gmpls-routing-09.txt, Octorber 2003 (work in progress).
[Inter-domain] A. Farrel, J-P. Vasseur, and A. Ayyangar, "A framework
for inter-domain MPLS traffic engineering," <draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-
domain-framework-00.txt> July 2004.
[HIER] K. Kompella and Y. Rekhter, "LSP hierarchy with generalized
MPLS TE," <draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-08.txt> Sept. 2002.
[MAMLTE] K. Shiomoto et al., "Multi-area multi-layer traffic
engineering using hierarchical LSPs in GMPLS networks", draft-
shiomoto-multiarea-te-01.txt (work in progress).
Shiomoto et al Expires April 2005 13
Requirements for GMPLS-based multi-region network October 2004
[GMPLS-LMP] J. Land, "Link management protocol (LMP)," draft-ietf-
ccamp-lmp-10.txt (work in progress), October 2003.
7. Author's Addresses
Kohei Shiomoto
NTT Network Service Systems Laboratories
3-9-11 Midori-cho,
Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180-8585, Japan
Email: shiomoto.kohei@lab.ntt.co.jp
Dimitri Papadimitriou
Alcatel
Francis Wellensplein 1,
B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
Phone : +32 3 240 8491
E-mail: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be
Jean-Louis Le Roux
France Telecom R&D
av Pierre Marzin
22300 Lannion
France
Email: jeanlouis.leroux@francetelecom.com
Martin Vigoureux (Alcatel)
Route de Nozay,
91461 Marcoussis cedex, France
Phone: +33 (0)1 69 63 18 52
E-mail: martin.vigoureux@alcatel.fr
Deborah Brungard
AT&T
Rm. D1-3C22 - 200 S. Laurel Ave.
Middletown, NJ 07748, USA
Phone: +1 732 420 1573
E-mail: dbrungard@att.com
Contributors
Eiji Oki (NTT Network Service Systems Laboratories) 3-9-11 Midori-cho
Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180-8585, Japan Phone : +81 422 59 3441 E-mail:
oki.eiji@lab.ntt.co.jp
Ichiro Inoue (NTT Network Service Systems Laboratories) 3-9-11
Midori-cho
Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180-8585, Japan Phone : +81 422 59 3441 E-mail:
ichiro.inoue@lab.ntt.co.jp
Emmanuel Dotaro (Alcatel) Route de Nozay, 91461 Marcoussis cedex,
France
Phone : +33 1 6963 4723 E-mail: emmanuel.dotaro@alcatel.fr
TBD et al Expires April 2005 14
Requirements for GMPLS-based multi-region network October 2004
8. 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.
9. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). 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.
TBD et al Expires April 2005 15 | PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 11:47:03 |