Network Working Group Yuanlin Bao Internet-Draft Faming Yang Intended status: Informational Xihua Fu Expires: September 1, 2010 ZTE Corporation February 28, 2010 Requirements For Path Ownership Transfer Between Management Plane And Control Plane In A MPLS-TP Network draft-bao-mpls-tp-path-transfer-reqs-00.txt Abstract From a carrier perspective, the possibility of transferring the ownership and control of an existing and in-use path between the management plane and the control plane, without actually affecting data plane traffic being carried over it, is a valuable option. This memo sets out the requirements for such procedures. 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 September 1, 2010. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2010 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 Yuanlin Bao, et al. Expires September 1, 2010 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Reqs for PW Transfer February 2010 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Requirements for MPLS-TP Path Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. General Requirements for LSP and PW . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2. Special Requirements for LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Yuanlin Bao, et al. Expires September 1, 2010 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Reqs for PW Transfer February 2010 1. Introduction As described in the architecture for Multi-Protocol Label Switching Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) [MPLS-TP-Fwk], the overall architecture framework for MPLS-TP is based on a profile of the MPLS and Pseudowire (PW) procedures as specified for the MPLS and (MS-)PW architectures defined in [RFC3031], [RFC3985] and [RFC5085]. Thus MPLS-TP path includes LSP and PW which is beared in LSP. MPLS-TP path can be configured and controlled by means of a Network Management System (NMS) operating within the Management Plane (MP). NMS/MP is the owner of MPLS-TP path, being responsible of it's set up, tear down and maintenance. The adoption of control plane in a MPLS-TP network that is already in service - controlled by NMS at MP level - introduces the need for a procedure able to coordinate a controlled transfer of PW from MP to CP. In addition, the control transfer in the opposite direction, from CP to MP should be possible as well. This memo considers the requirements of MPLS-TP path ownership transfer between management plane and control plane. Note, some aspects of a control-plane-initiated connection must be capable of being queried/controlled by the management plane. These aspects should be independent of how the connection was established. 1.1. Conventions used in this document The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 2. Requirements for MPLS-TP Path Transfer [RFC5493] describes the requirements for the conversion between permanent connection (PC) and switched connection (SC) in a GMPLS Network. However, MPLS-TP network supports unidirectional, associated bidirectional, co-routed bidirectional point-to-point transport paths and unidirectional point-to-multipoint transport paths. So, some requirements listed in [RFC5493] also apply to MPLS-TP path transfer. However, due to the particularity of MPLS-TP path including LSP and PW, there are still some different requirements. This section will lists all the requirements for the MPLS-TP path transfer. Yuanlin Bao, et al. Expires September 1, 2010 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Reqs for PW Transfer February 2010 2.1. General Requirements for LSP and PW This section lists the general requirements for LSP and PW. 1) No disruption of user traffic The MPLS-TP path transfer process MUST NOT cause any disruption of user traffic flowing over the path whose control is being transferred or over any other path in the network. If transfer fails, it's affection SHOULD be limited to the control plane or management plane, and the data plane MUST not be affected. The MPLS-TP path ownership transfer SHALL occur without generating alarms towards the end users or the NMS. 2) Data Plane PW Consistency The MPLS-TP transport path MUST stay in place throughout the whole control transfer process. That is to say, LSP and PW MUST follow the same transport path through the network and MUST use the same network resources. 3) Synchronization of State among Nodes during Conversion It MUST be assured that the state of the LSP and PW is synchronized among all nodes traversed by it before the conversion is considered complete. 4) Transfer between Management Plane and Control Plane It MUST be possible to transfer the ownership of a MPLS-TP path from the management plane to the control plane. It SHOULD be possible to transfer the ownership of a MPLS-TP path from the control plane to the management plane. 5) Revertion after Transfer Failure It's possible that PW transfer may fail. If PW fails to transfer from one plane to the other, a revertion mechnism MUST be possible to ensure LSP and PW status revert to the initial one before the transfer process starts. 2.2. Special Requirements for LSP For associated bidirectional LSP, it is comprised of two independent unidirectional LSP. The edge nodes and transit nodes belonging to the same associated bidirectional transport path, must be aware about the pairing relationship of the forward and the backward directions Yuanlin Bao, et al. Expires September 1, 2010 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Reqs for PW Transfer February 2010 belonging to the same associated bidirectional transport path. So, the pairing relationship MUST be created in CP when the associated bidirectional LSP from management transfers from MP to CP. s 3. Security Considerations TBD. 4. Acknowledgements The RFC text was produced using Marshall Rose's xml2rfc tool. 5. References 5.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC3985] Bryant, S. and P. Pate, "Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to- Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985, March 2005. [RFC4447] Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., Smith, T., and G. Heron, "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 4447, April 2006. [RFC5036] Andersson, L., Minei, I., and B. Thomas, "LDP Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007. [RFC5493] Caviglia, D., Bramanti, D., Li, D., and D. McDysan, "Requirements for the Conversion between Permanent Connections and Switched Connections in a Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Network", RFC 5493, April 2009. 5.2. Informative References [DYNAMIC-MS-PW] Luca Martini, Matthew Bocci, and Florin Balus, "Dynamic Placement of Multi Segment Pseudo Wires", draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-10.txt . [MPLS-TP-CP] Loa Andersson, Lou Berger, and Luyuan Fang, "MPLS-TP Control Plane Framework", Yuanlin Bao, et al. Expires September 1, 2010 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Reqs for PW Transfer February 2010 draft-abfb-mpls-tp-control-plane-framework-01.txt . [SEG-PW] Luca Martini and Chris Metz, "Segmented Pseudowire", draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-13.txt . Authors' Addresses Yuanlin Bao ZTE Corporation 5F, R&D Building 3, ZTE Industrial Park, XiLi LiuXian Road Nanshan District, Shenzhen 518055 P.R.China Phone: +86 755 26773731 Email: bao.yuanlin@zte.com.cn URI: http://www.zte.com.cn/ Faming Yang ZTE Corporation 4F, R&D Building 3, ZTE Industrial Park, XiLi LiuXian Road Nanshan District, Shenzhen 518055 P.R.China Phone: +86 755 26773731 Email: yang.faming@zte.com.cn URI: http://www.zte.com.cn/ Xihua Fu ZTE Corporation West District,ZTE Plaza,No.10,Tangyan South Road,Gaoxin District Xi An 710065 P.R.China Phone: +8613798412242 Email: fu.xihua@zte.com.cn URI: http://www.zte.com.cn/ Yuanlin Bao, et al. Expires September 1, 2010 [Page 6]