Network Working Group H. Long Internet Draft Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. Intended status: Standards Track May 16, 2011 Expires: November 2011 GMPLS Signaling Extension for Bandwidth availability draft-long-ccamp-gmpls-bandwidth-availability-00.txt Abstract Packet switching network usually contains links formed by non-fiber media, e.g., copper, radio, etc. Some kinds of non-fiber links have non-fixed bandwidth capacity because they are very sensitive to external environment. This document describes an extension for GMPLS RSVP-TE signaling for setting up a LSP in a PSN network which contains non-fixed bandwidth link by introducing an optional availability field in GMPLS signaling. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted 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 November 16, 2011. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. Long Expires November 16, 2011 [Page 1] Internet-Draft GMPLS Extension - Bandwidth Availability May 2011 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 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 Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction ................................................ 2 2. Extension to RSVP-TE Signaling............................... 3 3. Extension to Routing Protocol................................ 5 4. Security Considerations...................................... 7 5. IANA Considerations ......................................... 7 6. References .................................................. 7 6.1. Normative References.................................... 7 6.2. Informative References.................................. 7 7. Acknowledgments ............................................. 7 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]. 1. Introduction The RSVP-TE specification [RFC3209] and GMPLS extensions [RFC3473] specify the signaling message including the bandwidth request for setting up a label switching path in a PSN network. For some networks, it is also necessary to specify the availability requirement for the bandwidth request. This is because the links can provide different bandwidth capacity for different availability requirements. This kind of link is very popular in the access or backhaul networks. For example, the radio links may change their interface rates due to rain, fog, etc. The DSL links may change their interface rates due to external interference. is often used to describe the bandwidth capacity of the links during network planning. To set up a LSP across such kind of links, availability information is required for the nodes to verify bandwidth satisfaction and make bandwidth reservation. The availability information should be Long Expires November 16, 2011 [Page 2] Internet-Draft GMPLS Extension - Bandwidth Availability May 2011 inherited from the availability requirements of the services expected to be carried on the LSP. Since different service types may need different availabilities guarantee, multiple pairs may be required to be signaled. In addition, for the routing computation, the availability information should also be provided with bandwidth resource information. To fulfill LSP setup by signaling in these scenarios, this document specifies the following extensions: o A new SENDER_TSPEC object is defined which includes multiple bandwidth profiles with different availability. This object is an extension on the Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC defined by [RFC6003] which support multiple bandwidth profile TLVs, but limited in the scope of Ethernet. The extension uses the object genericly, and amends availability information in the bandwidth profile TLV. o An extension on ISCD for availability information support in routing signaling. The extension reuses the reserved field in the ISCD defined by [RFC4202] and also introduces an optional availability sub-TLV. 2. Extension to RSVP-TE Signaling 2.1. SENDER_TSPEC Object The SENDER_TSPEC object (Class-Num = 12) has the following format: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Length | Class-Num (12)| C-Type | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Class-Specific Information (Optional) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ TLVs ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Class-Specific Information: 32 bits This field indicates the specific information for different C-Type. Long Expires November 16, 2011 [Page 3] Internet-Draft GMPLS Extension - Bandwidth Availability May 2011 TLV (Type-Length-Value): The SENDER_TSPEC object MUST include at least one TLV and MAY include more than one TLV. 2.1.1. Bandwidth Profile TLV The Bandwidth Profile TLV has the following format. 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Profile | Index | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ... ... | ~ Traffic Parameters ~ | ... ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Profile: 8 bits This field is defined as a bit vector of binary flags. The following flags are defined: Flag 3 (bit 2): Availability Flag (AF) When The Flag 3 is set to value 1, there is an availability sub-TLV included in this Bandwidth Profile TLV. The availability sub-TLV has the following format: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Availability Information | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Type (2 octets): TBD Length (2 octets): 4 Value (4 octets): a 32-bit floating number describes availability requirement for this bandwidth request. The value must be less than 1. Index: 8 bits Long Expires November 16, 2011 [Page 4] Internet-Draft GMPLS Extension - Bandwidth Availability May 2011 See [RFC6003] section 4.1. Traffic Parameters: This field includes the traffic parameters information. The format is different for different C-Type. C-Type = InteServ: See [RFC2210]; C-Type = Ethernet: See [RFC6003]; 2.2. FLOWSPEC Object The FLOWSPEC object (Class-Num = 9, Class-Type = TBD) has the same format as the Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object. 2.3. Signaling Process The sender initiates PATH messages including one or more Bandwidth Profile TLVs with different availability value in the SENDER_TSPEC object. Each Bandwidth Profile TLV specifies the portion of bandwidth request with referred availability requirement. The receiving nodes check whether it can satisfy the bandwidth requirement by comparing each bandwidth requirement inside the SENDER_TSPEC objects with the unallocated link bandwidth resource with respective availability guarantee. o If all bandwidth requirements can be satisfied, it should allocate the bandwidth resource from each unallocated bandwidth portion for this LSP. o If at least one bandwidth requirement cannot be satisfied, it should generate PathErr messages. 3. Extension to Routing Protocol 3.1. Interface Switching Capacity Descriptor The Interface Switching Capacity Descriptor (ISCD) sub-TLV has the following format: Long Expires November 16, 2011 [Page 5] Internet-Draft GMPLS Extension - Bandwidth Availability May 2011 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Switching Cap | Encoding | AI | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ Switching Capacity Information ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ AI: 8 bits This field is the index of availability sub-TLV for this ISCD sub-TLV. The 3.2. ISCD Availability sub-TLV The availability sub-TLV has the following format: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Index | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Availability Information | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Type: TBD; Length: 8 Index: 8 bits This field is the index of this availability sub-TLV Availability Information: 32 bits This field is a 32-bit IEEE floating point number which describes the availability guarantee of the switching capacity in the ISCD object which has the AI value equal to Index of this sub-TLV. The value must be less than 1. Long Expires November 16, 2011 [Page 6] Internet-Draft GMPLS Extension - Bandwidth Availability May 2011 4. Security Considerations This document does not introduce new security considerations to the existing GMPLS and OSPF signaling protocols. 5. IANA Considerations TBD 6. References 6.1. Normative References [RFC2210] Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated Services", RFC 2210, September 1997. [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. [RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. [RFC4202] Kompella, K. and Rekhter, Y. (Editors), "Routing Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005. [RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005. [RFC6003] Papadimitriou, D. "Ethernet Traffic Parameters", RFC 6003, October 2010. 6.2. Informative References [MCOS] Minei, I., Gan, D., Kompella, K., and X. Li, "Extensions for Differentiated Services-aware Traffic Engineered LSPs", Work in Progress, June 2006. 7. Acknowledgments Long Expires November 16, 2011 [Page 7] Internet-Draft GMPLS Extension - Bandwidth Availability May 2011 Authors' Addresses Hao Long Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. Bantian, Longgang District Shenzhen 518129, P.R.China Phone: +86-18615778750 Email: longhao@huawei.com Long Expires November 16, 2011 [Page 8]