Network Working Group N. Sprecher Internet-Draft Y. Weingarten Intended status: Informational Nokia Siemens Networks Expires: January 13, 2011 K. Hong L. Fang Cisco Systems, Inc. July 12, 2010 Migration Considerations and Techniques to Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport Profile based Networks and Services draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-migration-02.txt Abstract MPLS-TP defines a packet-based network architecture and a comprehensive set of tools that allow service providers to reliably deliver next generation services and applications, in a simple, scalable, and cost-effective way. Such services are BW-hungry based and require strict guaranteed SLA. Delivering next generation services over MPLS-TP based network in an economic way, enables service providers to increase their revenue while remaining competitive. This document presents the motivations for migrating from different transport networks and services to MPLS-TP, and discusses the considerations and strategies for the migration. The document also proposes specific activities and techniques needed to ensure smooth migration path from the different transport networks and services to MPLS-TP 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). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 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." This Internet-Draft will expire on January 13, 2011. Sprecher, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 1] Internet-Draft MPLS-TP migration July 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 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. This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English. Sprecher, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 2] Internet-Draft MPLS-TP migration July 2010 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. Overview of MPLS-TP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2. Motivations for Upgrading Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Terminology and References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.1. Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. General Migration Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Migrating from TDM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1. Main motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.2. Migration Activities and Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Migrating from ATM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1. Main motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.2. Migration activities and Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Migrating from Ethernet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6.1. Main motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.2. Migration activities and Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. Migrating from MPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.1. MPLS-TE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.1.1. Main motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.1.2. Migration activities and Techniques . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.2. IP/MPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.2.1. Main motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.2.2. Migration activities and Techniques . . . . . . . . . . 8 8. Migrating from pre-release MPLS-TP (T-MPLS) . . . . . . . . . . 8 8.1. Main motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8.2. Migration activities and Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Sprecher, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 3] Internet-Draft MPLS-TP migration July 2010 Editors' Note: This Informational Internet-Draft is aimed at achieving IETF Consensus before publication as an RFC and will be subject to an IETF Last Call. [RFC Editor, please remove this note before publication as an RFC and insert the correct Streams Boilerplate to indicate that the published RFC has IETF Consensus.] 1. Introduction 1.1. Overview of MPLS-TP The Transport Profile for MPLS (MPLS-TP) is being specified in the IETF as part of a joint effort with the ITU-T to develop a definition of the MPLS network that will fulfill the strict requirements for transport networks that are accepted by the ITU-T. This profile will be based on the definitions of the MPLS, MPLS Traffic Engineering, and Multi-Segment Pseudo-Wire architectures defined in [RFC3031], [RFC3985], and [RFC5659]. The requirements for MPLS-TP are detailed in [RFC5654]. These requirements were developed in full cooperation between the IETF and ITU-T, and reflect the needs to adhere to the architecture of MPLS while including the enhanced level of service transparency, and Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) functionality required for stable transport networks. The requirements for the OAM functionality are further developed and defined in [MPLS-TP-OAM], providing the list of OAM procedures to be supported by MPLS-TP. The architecture for MPLS-TP is defined in [RFC5921] and builds on the experience of the MPLS architecture. The architecture is defined to allow MPLS-TP networks to operate whether the configuration was implemented by use of control-plane signaling or through use of a management application. In addition, the MPLS-TP architecture is designed to support networks that may not be using IP forwarding and addressing. The framework defines the different service structures supported by MPLS-TP and the interworking between these service structures and existing MPLS services. Also defined are the characteristics of the profile that defines MPLS-TP. This synergy of architectures guarantees the service provider the ability to provide services with guaranteed and strict Service Level Agreements in a highly scalable robust network while reducing operational costs. A main focus of MPLS-TP is the definition of OAM functionality for MPLS data paths that support the transport services. MPLS-TP Sprecher, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 4] Internet-Draft MPLS-TP migration July 2010 provides a comprehensive set of OAM tools for fault management and performance monitoring, supporting the network and the services at different nested levels (i.e. at the end-to-end level, a segment of a path, and link level). The OAM tools may be used to monitor the network infrastructure, to enhance the general behavior, and performance level of the network. The tools may also be used to monitor the service level offered to the end customer, allowing verification of the SLA parameters, and enabling rapid response in the event of a failure or service degradation. The OAM tools help reduce OPEX, minimizing the overhead of trouble shooting, and enhancing customer satisfaction which, in turn, helps to enable the delivery of high-margin premium services. The architectural constructs and the methodology of the OAM functionality is defined by [MPLS-TP-OAM-Fwk]. This includes the definition of the transport entities that are monitored by the OAM procedures and detailed description of how the OAM procedures are applied to these transport entities. A central issue in MPLS-TP OAM is the independence of the OAM from the existence of an operational control plane in the network. This feature is supported by the creation of an in-band control channel that is used to transmit the OAM procedures across the transport paths. A cornerstone of the definition of the OAM procedures is to use existing IETF OAM tools as the basis of the MPLS-TP OAM procedures wherever possible, this principle is used as the underlying foundation for the definition of the OAM tools defined for MPLS-TP. Protection mechanisms for the MPLS-TP transport paths are described in [MPLS-TP-Surviv] and are conformant with different topological configurations of the network. 1.2. Motivations for Upgrading Networks The growth of packet traffic has significantly increased, driven by the high demand and penetration of new packet-based services and multimedia applications, across the access, aggregation and core networks and is being expected to continue to increase. With the movement towards packet-based services, the transport network has to evolve to encompass the provision of packet-aware capabilities while enabling carriers to leverage their installed, as well as planned, transport infrastructure investments. Carriers are in need of technologies capable of efficiently supporting packet-based services and applications on their transport networks with guaranteed Service Level Agreements (SLAs). The need to increase their revenue while remaining competitive forces operators to look for the lowest network Total Cost of Ownership (TCO), and as such requires investment in equipment and facilities Sprecher, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 5] Internet-Draft MPLS-TP migration July 2010 (Capital Expenditure (CAPEX)) and Operational Expenditure (OPEX) be minimized. There are a number of technology options for carriers to meet the challenge of increased service sophistication and transport efficiency, with increasing usage of hybrid packet-transport and circuit-transport technology solutions. To address this challenge, it is essential that packet-transport technology be available that can provide reliability, operational simplicity - preserving the look and feel to which service providers have accustomed, multi-layer operations, resiliency, control, and multi-technology management. 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 (management-plane-based) or dynamic (control-plane-based) provisioning of deterministic, protected, and secured services and their associated resources. For transport carriers, it is also important to ensure smooth interworking of the packet transport network with other existing/legacy packet networks, and provide mappings to enable packet transport carriage over a variety of transport network infrastructures. MPLS is a maturing packet technology and it is already playing an important role in transport networks and services. The development of MPLS-TP has proposed a set of compatible technology enhancements to existing MPLS standards to extent the definition of MPLS towards supporting traditional transport operational models. These enhancements inherit all the supporting QoS, recovery, control and data plane mechanisms already defined within standards. MPLS-TP will enable the deployment of packet-based transport networks that will efficiently scale to support packet services in a simple and cost- effective way. 2. Terminology and References 2.1. Acronyms This draft uses the following acronyms: MPLS-TP Multiprotocol Label Switching - Transport Protocol OAM Operations, Administration, and Maintenance Sprecher, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 6] Internet-Draft MPLS-TP migration July 2010 3. General Migration Strategies Smooth migration paths are required when migrating from various transport networks and services towards the MPLS-TP-based packet- centric architecture, and it should be done in a cost- efficient and scalabel way. Smooth migration is required to enable service providers to maintain their existing investments in the installed base for as long as economically justifiable. For service providers, smooth migration path and seamless interworking between the installed networks and the MPLS-TP based network, also eliminate the risks associated with fork-lifting upgrade on the whole network on one day with a new technology or implementation. This approach allows service providers to ensure that the new implementations work as expected in live networks and that the customers' quality of experience is maintained and not affected. The seamless interworking between the installed network and te MPLS-TP network networks should consider aspects of data-plane, OAM and recovery mechanisms, control plane and management-plane The migration process must obviously be performed without a service break. Existing connections must not be disrupted and service performance, availability, and subscriber experience must remain unaffected. When the upgrade process is completed, new connections can ne setup using MPLS-TP. 4. Migrating from TDM 4.1. Main motivation 4.2. Migration Activities and Techniques 5. Migrating from ATM 5.1. Main motivation 5.2. Migration activities and Techniques 6. Migrating from Ethernet Sprecher, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 7] Internet-Draft MPLS-TP migration July 2010 6.1. Main motivation 6.2. Migration activities and Techniques 7. Migrating from MPLS 7.1. MPLS-TE 7.1.1. Main motivation 7.1.2. Migration activities and Techniques 7.2. IP/MPLS 7.2.1. Main motivation 7.2.2. Migration activities and Techniques 8. Migrating from pre-release MPLS-TP (T-MPLS) 8.1. Main motivation 8.2. Migration activities and Techniques 9. Manageability Considerations 10. Security Considerations 11. IANA Considerations This informational document makes no requests for IANA action. 12. Acknowledgments 13. References 13.1. Normative References [RFC5654] Niven-Jenkins, B., Ed., Brungard, D., Ed., Betts, M., Ed., Sprecher, N., and S. Ueno, "Requirements of an MPLS Transport Profile", RFC 5317, February 2009. Sprecher, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 8] Internet-Draft MPLS-TP migration July 2010 [MPLS-TP-OAM] Busi, I., Ed. and B. Niven-Jenkins, Ed., "Requirements for OAM in MPLS Transport Networks", draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-requirements, Work in Progress. [MPLS-TP-OAM-Fwk] Busi, I., Ed. and B. Niven-Jenkins, Ed., "A Framework for MPLS in Transport Networks", draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-framework, Work in Progress. [MPLS-TP-Surviv] Sprecher, N. and A. Farrel, "Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport Profile Survivabiliry Framework", draft-ietf-mpls-tp-survive-fwk, Work in Progress. 13.2. Informative References [RFC3985] Bryant, S. and P. Pate, "Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to- Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985, March 2005. [RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001. [RFC5659] Bocci, M. and S. Bryant, "An Architecture for Multi- Segment Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-Edge", RFC 5659, October 2009. [RFC5921] Bocci, M., Ed., Bryant, S., Ed., Frost, D., Ed., Levrau, L., Ed., and L. Berger, Ed., "A Framework for MPLS in Transport Networks", RFC 5921. [RFC5920] Levrau, L., Ed., "A Framework for MPLS in Transport Networks", RFC 5920. Authors' Addresses Nurit Sprecher Nokia Siemens Networks 3 Hanagar St. Neve Ne'eman B Hod Hasharon, 45241 Israel Email: nurit.sprecher@nsn.com Sprecher, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 9] Internet-Draft MPLS-TP migration July 2010 Yaacov Weingarten Nokia Siemens Networks 3 Hanagar St. Neve Ne'eman B Hod Hasharon, 45241 Israel Email: yaacov.weingarten@nsn.com Kyung-Yeop Hong Cisco Systems, Inc. 300 Beaver Brook Road Boxborough, Massachusetts 01719 USA Email: hongk@cisco.com Luyuan Fang Cisco Systems, Inc. 300 Beaver Brook Road Boxborough, MA 01719 USA Email: lufang@cisco.com Sprecher, et al. Expires January 13, 2011 [Page 10]