draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-reqts-00.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-reqts-01.txt 
CCAMP Working Group Wesam Alanqar (Sprint) CCAMP Working Group Wesam Alanqar (Sprint)
Internet Draft Deborah Brungard (ATT) Internet Draft Deborah Brungard (ATT)
Category: Informational Dave Meyer (1-4-5 Net) Category: Informational Dave Meyer (Cisco Systems)
Lyndon Ong (Ciena) Lyndon Ong (Ciena)
Expiration Date: May 2004 Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel) Expiration Date: May 2004 Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel)
Jonathan Sadler (Tellabs) Jonathan Sadler (Tellabs)
Stephen Shew (Nortel) Stephen Shew (Nortel)
December 2003 December 2003
Requirements for Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Routing Requirements for Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Routing
for Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON) for Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-reqts-00.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-reqts-01.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC-2026. all provisions of Section 10 of RFC-2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of
skipping to change at line 48 skipping to change at line 48
The Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) suite of protocols has been defined to The Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) suite of protocols has been defined to
control different switching technologies as well as different control different switching technologies as well as different
applications. These include support for requesting TDM connections applications. These include support for requesting TDM connections
including SONET/SDH and Optical Transport Networks (OTNs). including SONET/SDH and Optical Transport Networks (OTNs).
This document concentrates on the routing requirements on the GMPLS This document concentrates on the routing requirements on the GMPLS
suite of protocols to support the capabilities and functionalities suite of protocols to support the capabilities and functionalities
of an Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON). of an Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON).
*** This draft is in an early stage and propose only a template to
be further developed ***
W.Alanqar et al. - Expires May 2004 1 W.Alanqar et al. - Expires May 2004 1
1. Contributors 1. Contributors
This document is the result of the CCAMP Working Group ASON Routing This document is the result of the CCAMP Working Group ASON Routing
Requirements design team joint effort. Requirements design team joint effort.
2. Conventions used in this document 2. Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in
this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119. this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119.
The reader is also assumed to be familiar with the terminology used
in [G.8080] and [G.7715].
3. Introduction 3. Introduction
The GMPLS suite of protocol provides support for controlling The GMPLS suite of protocol provides support for controlling
different switching technologies as well as different applications. different switching technologies as well as different applications.
These include support for requesting TDM connections including These include support for requesting TDM connections including
SONET/SDH (see ANSI T1.105 and ITU-T G.707, respectively) as well as SONET/SDH (see ANSI T1.105/ITU-T G.707) as well as Optical Transport
Optical Transport Networks (see ITU-T G.709). However, there are Networks (see ITU-T G.709). However, there are certain capabilities
certain capabilities that are needed to support Automatically that are needed to support the ITU-T G.8080 control plane
Switched Optical Networks (ASON) control planes. Therefore, it is architecture for the Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON).
desirable to understand the corresponding requirements for the GMPLS Therefore, it is desirable to understand the corresponding
protocol suite. ASON control plane architecture is defined in requirements for the GMPLS protocol suite. The ASON control plane
[G.8080] and ASON routing requirements are identified in [G.7715]. architecture is defined in [G.8080] and ASON routing requirements
Also, the SG15/Q.14 is working on refining these requirements. are identified in [G.7715] and refined in [G.7715.1] for link state
architectures. These recommendations provide functional requirements
and architecture, they provide a protocol neutral approach.
This document focuses on the routing requirements for the GMPLS This document focuses on the routing requirements for the GMPLS
suite of protocols to support the capabilities and functionalities suite of protocols to support the capabilities and functionalities
of ASON control planes. It discusses the requirements for GMPLS of ASON control planes. It discusses the requirements for GMPLS
routing that MAY subsequently lead to additional backward compatible routing that MAY subsequently lead to additional backward compatible
extensions to support the capabilities specified in the above extensions to support the capabilities specified in the above
referenced document. A description of backward compatibility referenced document. A description of backward compatibility
considerations is provided in Section 5. Nonetheless, any protocol considerations is provided in Section 5. Nonetheless, any protocol
(in particular, routing) design or suggested protocol extensions is (in particular, routing) design or suggested protocol extensions is
strictly outside the scope of this document. A terminology section strictly outside the scope of this document. An ASON (Routing)
(that may be further completed) is provided in the Appendix. terminology section is provided in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2.
The ASON model distinguishes reference points (representing points The ASON model distinguishes reference points (representing points
of protocol information exchange) defined (1) between an of protocol information exchange) defined (1) between an
administrative domain and a user a.k.a. user-network interface administrative domain and a user (user-network interface or UNI),
(UNI), (2) between (and when needed within) administrative domains (2) between administrative domains or within an administrative
a.k.a. external network-network interface (E-NNI) and, (3) between domain between different control domains (external network-network
areas of the same administrative domain and when needed between interface or E-NNI) and, (3) within the same administrative domain
control components (or simply controllers) within areas a.k.a. between control components (or simply controllers) of the same
internal network-network interface (I-NNI). control domain (internal network-network interface or I-NNI). The
ASON model allows for the protocols used within different control
The ASON routing architectural model is based on the following domains to be different; and for the protocol used between control
assumptions: domains to be different than the protocols used within control
domains. I-NNI interfaces are located between protocol controllers
- The information exchanged between routing controllers is subject within a control domain. E-NNI interfaces are located on protocol
controllers between control domains.
W.Alanqar et al. - Expires May 2004 2 W.Alanqar et al. - Expires May 2004 2
to policy constraints imposed at reference points (E-NNI and I- The term routing information refers to the abstract representation
NNI) of network routing related information such as node and link
attributes (see Section 4.5). No routing information is passed over
- The routing information exchanged between routing domains (i.e. the UNI. Routing information exchanged over the NNI is subject to
inter-domain) is independent of intra-domain routing protocol the policy constraints at individual NNIs. The routing information
exchanged over the E-NNI encapsulates the common semantics of the
- The routing information exchanged between routing domains is individual domain information while allowing different
independent of intra-domain control distribution choices, e.g. representation within each domain.
centralized, fully distributed
The ASON routing architecture is based on the following assumptions:
- A carrier's network is subdivided as Routing Areas (RAs). Each RA
shall be uniquely identifiable within a carrier's network (i.e.
administrative domain). Partitioning into RAs provides for routing
information abstraction, thereby enabling scalable routing.
- Routing Controllers (RC) provide for the exchange of routing
information between and within a RA. The routing information
exchanged between RCs is subject to policy constraints imposed at
reference points (E-NNI and I-NNI).
- A RA MAY support different routing protocols. There SHOULD NOT be
any dependencies on the different routing protocols used.
- For a RA, the cluster of RCs is referred to as a routing domain.
The routing information exchanged between routing domains (i.e.
inter-domain) is independent of both the intra-domain routing
protocol and the intra-domain control distribution choice(s), e.g.
centralized, fully distributed.
- The routing adjacency topology and transport network topology - The routing adjacency topology and transport network topology
shall not be assumed to be congruent SHALL NOT be assumed to be congruent.
- Each routing area shall be uniquely identifiable within a
carrier's network (constituted by several routing domains)
The following functionality is to be supported by GMPLS routing to The following functionality is expected from GMPLS routing to
instantiate ASON routing realization: instantiate ASON routing realization (see [G.7715]):
- support multiple hierarchical levels - support multiple hierarchical levels of RAs
- support hierarchical routing information dissemination including - support hierarchical routing information dissemination including
summarized routing information summarized routing information
- support for multiple links between nodes (and allow for link and - support for multiple links between nodes and RAs (allowing for
node diversity) link and node diversity)
- support architectural evolution in terms of the number of levels - support architectural evolution in terms of the number of levels
of hierarchies, aggregation and segmentation of (control ?) of hierarchies, aggregation and segmentation of RAs
domains - support routing information based on a common set of information
- support routing information divided between attributes pertaining elements as defined in [G.7715] and [G.7715.1], divided between
to links and nodes (representing either a routing area or attributes pertaining to links and abstract nodes (each
sub-network) representing either a sub-network or simply a node). [G.7715]
recognizes that the manner in which the routing information is
represented and exchanged will vary with the routing protocol
used.
In addition the behaviour of GMPLS routing is expected to be such Also, the behaviour of GMPLS routing is expected to be such that:
that: - it is scalable with respect to the number of links, nodes and RAs
- it is scalable with respect to the number of links, nodes and
routing area hierarchical levels. - what does this means ? is it
routing areas and hierarchical levels ? or hierarchical levels of
routing areas -
- in response to a routing event (e.g. topology update, reachability - in response to a routing event (e.g. topology update, reachability
update), it delivers convergence and damping against flapping update), it delivers convergence and damping against flapping
- it fulfils the operational security objectives where required - it fulfils the operational security objectives where required
W.Alanqar et al. - Expires May 2004 3
4. ASON Requirements for GMPLS Routing 4. ASON Requirements for GMPLS Routing
The next sections detail the requirements for GMPLS routing to The description of the ASON routing components (see Appendix 2) is
support the following ASON routing functions: provided in terms of routing functionality. This description is only
- supporting multiple hierarchical levels conceptual: no physical partitioning of these functions is implied.
- support hierarchical routing information dissemination including
summarized routing information
- support for multiple links between nodes (and allow for link and
node diversity)
- support architectural evolution in terms of the number of levels
of hierarchies, aggregation and segmentation of (control ?)
domains
W.Alanqar et al. - Expires May 2004 3 The Routing Controller (RC) component receive routing information
- support of routing attributes for links and nodes from their associated Link Resource Manager(s) (LRMs) regarding TE
links and store this information in the Routing Information Database
(RDB). The RDB is replicated at each RC within the same Routing Area
(RA), and MAY contain information about multiple transport plane
network layers. Whenever the state of a TE link (or component link)
changes, the LRM informs the corresponding RC, which in turn updates
its associated RDB. In order to assure RDB synchronization, the RCs
co-operate and exchange routing information. In this context,
communication between RCs is realized using a particular routing
protocol represented by the protocol controller (PC) component and
the protocol messages are conveyed over the Signaling Control
Network (SCN). The PC MAY convey information for one or more
transport network layers.
Note: the RC can be thought as the function processing the TE
database populated by the link local/remote component and TE links
(LRM) and by the network wide TE links through the PC which
processes the protocol specific routing exchanges. The SCN
corresponds to the IP control plane topology enabling routing
exchanges between GMPLS controllers (i.e. the routing adjacencies).
The next sections detail the requirements for GMPLS routing to
support the following ASON routing functions.
4.1 Multiple Hierarchical Levels 4.1 Multiple Hierarchical Levels
TBD. Routing Areas (RAs) provide for routing information abstraction,
thereby enabling scalable routing information representation.
[G.7715] describes the use of hierarchy as one possible choice for
routing area organization. RAs MAY be hierarchically contained: a
higher level (parent) RA contains lower level (child) RAs that in
turn MAY also contain RAs, etc. Thus, RAs contain RAs that
recursively define successive hierarchical routing levels. The
realization of the routing paradigm to support hierarchical routing
levels and the number of hierarchical levels to be supported is
protocol specific and outside the scope of this document.
Note: an RA can be considered as representing either an Autonomous
System (AS) or a canonical IGP routing area, both are sometimes
referred to as routing regions (or simply regions).
ASON routing components are identified by values that MAY be drawn
from several identifier spaces. The use of identifiers in a routing
protocol realization is implementation specific and outside the
scope of this document.
W.Alanqar et al. - Expires May 2004 4
In a multi-level routing hierarchy, it is necessary to distinguish
among RCs within a level and RCs at different levels of the routing
hierarchy. Before any pair of RCs establishes communication, they
must verify they belong to the same RA. An RA identifier (RA ID) is
required to provide the scope within which the RCs can communicate.
To distinguish between RCs within the same RA, an RC identifier (RC
ID) is required; the RC ID must be unique within its containing RA.
Note: RA IDs MAY be associated with a transport plane name space
whereas RC IDs are associated with a control plane name space.
4.2 Hierarchical Routing Information Dissemination 4.2 Hierarchical Routing Information Dissemination
TBD. Routing information MAY be exchanged between adjacent levels of the
routing hierarchy i.e. Level N+1 and N, where Level N represents the
RAs contained by Level N+1. The links connecting RAs MAY be viewed
as external links, and the links representing connectivity within an
RA MAY be viewed as internal links.
4.3 Multiple Links between Nodes The physical location of RCs at adjacent levels, their relationship
and their communication protocol are outside the scope of this
document. No assumption is made regarding how RCs communicate
between levels. Information exchange between an RC, its parent, and
its child RCs, SHOULD include reachability and MAY include (upon
policy decision) node and link topology.
TBD. Multiple RCs within a RA MAY transform (filter, summarize, etc.) and
then forward information to RCs at different levels. However in this
case the resulting information at the receiving level must be self-
consistent; this MAY be achieved using a number of mechanisms.
4.4 Evolution 4.2.1 Communication between Adjacent Routing Levels
TBD. 1. Type of Information Exchanged
The type of information flowing upward (i.e. Level N to Level
N+1) and the information flowing downward (i.e. Level N+1 to
Level N) are used for similar purposes, namely, the exchange of
reachability information and summarized topology information to
allow routing across multiple RAs. The summarization of topology
information may impact the accuracy of routing and MAY require
additional path calculation.
The following information exchange are expected:
- Level N+1 visibility to Level N reachability and topology (or
upward information communication) allowing RC(s) at level N+1
to determine the reachable endpoints from Level N.
- Level N visibility to Level N+1 reachability and topology (or
downward information communication) allowing RC(s) in an RA at
Level N to develop paths to reachable endpoints outside of the
RA.
W.Alanqar et al. - Expires May 2004 5
2. Interactions between Upward and Downward Communication
When both upward and downward information exchanges contain
endpoint reachability information, a feedback loop could
potentially be created. Consequently, the routing protocol MUST
include a mechanism to prevent re-introduction of information
propagated into the Level N RA back to the external level RA from
which this information has been initially received.
The routing protocol is required to differentiate the routing
information originated at a given level RA from the one derived
using the routing information received from its external RAs
(regardless of the level of the corresponding RCs). This is a
necessary condition to be fulfilled by routing protocols to be
loop free.
Also, for ASON, the routing information exchange may generate
transient loops at the data plane if no route recording is used
during signaling. So, at the data plane, it is not the routing
exchange that guarantees (transient) loop avoidance but the
signaling protocol by recording the route until the node where
computation occurs (by excluding segments already traversed).
3. Method of Communication
Two approaches exist for communication between Level N and N+1.
- The first approach places an instance of a Level N routing
function and an instance of a Level N+1 routing function in the
same system. The communications interface is within a single
system and is thus not an open interface subject to
standardization.
- The second approach places the Level N routing function on a
separate system from the Level N+1 routing function. In this
case, a communication interface must be used between the
systems containing the routing functions for different levels.
This communication interface and mechanisms are outside the
scope of this document.
4.2.2 Configuring the Routing Hierarchy
The RC MUST support static (i.e. operator assisted) and MAY support
automated configuration of the information describing its
relationship to parent and its child within the hierarchical routing
structure (including RA ID and RC ID). When applied recursively, the
whole hierarchy is thus configured.
4.2.3 Configuring RC Adjacencies
The RC MUST support static (i.e. operator assisted) and MAY support
automated configuration of the information describing its control
W.Alanqar et al. - Expires May 2004 6
adjacencies to other RCs within an RA. The protocol SHOULD support
all the types of adjacencies described in Section 9 of [G.7715].
4.3 Evolution
The containment relationships of RAs MAY change, motivated by events
such as mergers, acquisitions, and divestitures.
The routing protocol SHOULD be capable of supporting architectural
evolution in terms of number of hierarchical levels, as well as
aggregation and segmentation of RAs. RA IDs uniqueness within an
administrative domain MAY facilitate these operations. The routing
protocol is not expected to automatically initiate and/or execute
these operations.
4.4 Multiple Links between Nodes and RAs
See Section 4.5.3
4.5 Routing Attributes 4.5 Routing Attributes
TBD. Routing for transport networks is performed on a per layer basis,
where the routing paradigms MAY differ among layers and within a
layer. Not all equipments support the same set of transport layers
nor the same degree of connection flexibility at any given layer. A
server layer trail may support various clients, involving different
adaptation functions. Additionally, equipment may support variable
adaptation functionality, whereby a single server layer trail
dynamically supports different multiplexing structures. As a result,
routing information MAY include layer specific, layer independent,
and client/server adaptation information.
4.5.1 Link Attributes 4.5.1 Taxonomy of Attributes
TBD. Attributes can be organized according to the following categories:
4.5.2 Node Attributes - Node related or link related
TBD. - Provisioned, negotiated or automatically configured
- Inherited or layer specific (client layers can inherit some
attributes from the server layer while other attributes like
Link Capacity are specified by layer).
(Component) link attributes can be statically or automatically
configured for each transport network layer. This may lead to
unnecessary repetition. Hence, the inheritance property of
attributes can also be used to optimize the configuration process.
TE links are configured through grouping of component links.
Grouping MAY be based on different link attributes (e.g., SRLG
information, link weight, etc).
W.Alanqar et al. - Expires May 2004 7
Two RAs may be linked by one or more TE links. Multiple TE links may
be required when component links are not equivalent for routing
purposes with respect to the RAs they are attached to, or to the
containing RA, or when smaller groupings are required.
4.5.2 Commonly Advertised Information
Advertisements MAY contain the following common set of information
regardless of whether they are link or node related:
- RA ID of which the advertisement is bounded
- RC ID of the entity generating the advertisement
- Information to uniquely identify advertisements
- Information to determine whether an advertisement has been updated
- Information to indicate when an advertisement has been derived
from a source external to the routing area
4.5.3 Node Attributes
All nodes belong to a RA, hence the RA ID can be considered an
attribute of all nodes. Given that no distinction is made between
abstract nodes and those that cannot be decomposed any further, the
same attributes MAY be used for their advertisement.
The following Node Attributes are defined:
Attribute Capability Usage
----------- ----------- ---------
Node ID REQUIRED REQUIRED
Reachability REQUIRED OPTIONAL
Table 1. Node Attributes
Reachability information describes the set of endpoints that are
reachable by the associated node. It MAY be advertised as a set of
associated address prefixes or a set of associated TE link IDs,
consistently assigned within an administrative domain.
Note: no distinction is made between nodes that may have further
internal details (i.e., abstract nodes) and those that cannot be
decomposed any further.
4.5.4 Link Attributes
The following Link Attributes are defined:
Link Attribute Capability Usage
--------------- ----------- ---------
Local TE link ID REQUIRED REQUIRED
Remote TE link ID REQUIRED REQUIRED
TE Link Characteristics Table 3
Table 2. Link Attributes
W.Alanqar et al. - Expires May 2004 8
The TE link ID must be sufficient to uniquely identify the
corresponding transport plane resource taking into account
separation of data and control planes. The TE link ID format is
routing protocol specific.
Note: when the remote end of a TE link is located outside of the RA,
the remote TE link ID is OPTIONAL.
The following TE link characteristic attributes are defined:
- Signal Type: This identifies the characteristic information of the
layer network.
- Link Weight: The metric indicating the relative desirability of a
particular link over another e.g. during path computation.
- Resource Class: This corresponds to the set of administrative
groups assigned by the operator to this link. A link MAY belong to
zero, one or more administrative groups.
- Connection Types: This allows identification of whether the local
component link is at a border or within an LSP region (see [HIER])
- Link Capacity: This provides the sum of the available and
potential bandwidth capacity for a particular network transport
layer. Other capacity measures MAY be further considered.
- Link Availability: This represents the survivability capability
such as the protection type associated with the link.
- Diversity Support: This represents diversity information such as
the SRLG information associated with the link.
- Local Adaptation Support: This indicates the set of client layer
adaptations supported by the local component link associated to
the local TE link. This can only exist when the "Local Connection
Type" indicates crossing of an LSP Region or can be flexibly
assigned to be at a border or within an LSP region (see [HIER]).
TE link Characteristics Capability Usage
----------------------- ---------- ---------
Signal Type REQUIRED OPTIONAL
Link Weight REQUIRED OPTIONAL
Resource Class REQUIRED OPTIONAL
Local Connection Types REQUIRED OPTIONAL
Link Capacity REQUIRED OPTIONAL
Link Availability OPTIONAL OPTIONAL
Diversity Support OPTIONAL OPTIONAL
Local Adaptation support OPTIONAL OPTIONAL
Table 3. TE link Characteristics
W.Alanqar et al. - Expires May 2004 9
Note: separate advertisements of layer specific attributes MAY be
chosen. However this may lead to unnecessary duplication. This can
be avoided using the inheritance property, so that attributes
derivable from the local adaptation information do not need to be
advertised.
5. Backward Compatibility 5. Backward Compatibility
TBD. Any particular realization of the ASON routing requirements MUST be
backward compatible with the considered routing protocol(s).
Backward compatibility means that at any level of the routing
hierarchy, nodes, some of which support the requirements described
in this document, and some of which do not, must still be capable to
operate as mandated by the OSPF, IS-IS, and/or IDR IETF WG and their
corresponding GMPLS extensions (as mandated by the CCAMP IETF WG).
Additionally, nodes (that do not support these requirements) are
made part of a multi-level routing hierarchy from their containing
RA(s), must be capable of:
- rejecting any incoming routing information that would be
addressed to them in a way that is not detrimental to the
network as a whole
- communicating (at a given level) with any other node located
at the same level and that implements these requirements
This assumes that such nodes do not communicate directly either with
lower or upper level nodes.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
TBD. TBD.
7. Acknowledgements 7. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Kireeti Kompella for having The authors would like to thank Kireeti Kompella for having
initiated the proposal of an ASON Routing Requirement Design Team. initiated the proposal of an ASON Routing Requirement Design Team.
8. References 8. Intellectual Property Considerations
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property 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; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
claims of rights made available for publication 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 implementors or users of this specification
can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.
W.Alanqar et al. - Expires May 2004 10
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.
9. References
[RFC 2026] S.Bradner, "The Internet Standards Process -- [RFC 2026] S.Bradner, "The Internet Standards Process --
Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC 2119] S.Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC 2119] S.Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[G.7715] ITU-T Rec. G.7715/Y.1306, "Architecture and [G.7715] ITU-T Rec. G.7715/Y.1306, "Architecture and
W.Alanqar et al. - Expires May 2004 4
Requirements for the Automatically Switched Optical Requirements for the Automatically Switched Optical
Network (ASON)," June 2002. Network (ASON)," June 2002.
[G.7715.1] ITU-T Draft Rec. G.7715.1/Y.1706.1, "ASON Routing
Architecture and Requirements for Link State
Protocols," November 2003.
[G.8080] ITU-T Rec. G.8080/Y.1304, "Architecture for the [G.8080] ITU-T Rec. G.8080/Y.1304, "Architecture for the
Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)," Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON),"
November 2001 (and Revision, January 2003). November 2001 (and Revision, January 2003).
9. Author's Addresses [HIER] K.Kompella and Y.Rekhter, "LSP Hierarchy with
Generalized MPLS TE," Internet draft (work in
progress), draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy, Sept'02.
Wesam Alanqar 10. Author's Addresses
Sprint - Technology Research and Development
Wesam Alanqar (Sprint)
EMail: wesam.alanqar@mail.sprint.com EMail: wesam.alanqar@mail.sprint.com
Deborah Brungard (AT&T) Deborah Brungard (AT&T)
Rm. D1-3C22 - 200 S. Laurel Ave. Rm. D1-3C22 - 200 S. Laurel Ave.
Middletown, NJ 07748, USA Middletown, NJ 07748, USA
Phone: +1 732 4201573 Phone: +1 732 4201573
EMail: dbrungard@att.com EMail: dbrungard@att.com
David Meyer David Meyer (Cisco Systems)
EMail: dmm@1-4-5.net EMail: dmm@1-4-5.net
Lyndon Ong (Ciena Corporation) Lyndon Ong (Ciena Corporation)
5965 Silver Creek Valley Rd 5965 Silver Creek Valley Rd,
San Jose, CA 95128, USA San Jose, CA 95128, USA
Tel: +1 408 8347894 Phone: +1 408 8347894
EMail: lyong@ciena.com EMail: lyong@ciena.com
Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel) Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel)
W.Alanqar et al. - Expires May 2004 11
Francis Wellensplein 1, Francis Wellensplein 1,
B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
Phone : +32 3 2408491 Phone : +32 3 2408491
EMail: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be EMail: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be
Jonathan Sadler Jonathan Sadler
1415 W. Diehl Rd 1415 W. Diehl Rd
Naperville, IL 60563 Naperville, IL 60563
EMail: jonathan.sadler@tellabs.com EMail: jonathan.sadler@tellabs.com
Stephen Shew (Nortel Networks) Stephen Shew (Nortel Networks)
PO Box 3511 Station C PO Box 3511 Station C
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA K1Y 4H7 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA K1Y 4H7
Tel: +1 613 7632462 Phone: +1 613 7632462
EMail: sdshew@nortelnetworks.com EMail: sdshew@nortelnetworks.com
W.Alanqar et al. - Expires May 2004 5 W.Alanqar et al. - Expires May 2004 12
Appendix - Terminology Appendix 1 - ASON Terminology
This document makes use of the following terms: This document makes use of the following terms:
Administrative domain: See Recommendation G.805. Administrative domain: See Recommendation G.805.
Control plane: performs the call control and connection control Control plane: performs the call control and connection control
functions. Through signaling, the control plane sets up and releases functions. Through signaling, the control plane sets up and releases
connections, and may restore a connection in case of a failure. connections, and may restore a connection in case of a failure.
(Control) Domain: represents a collection of entities that are (Control) Domain: represents a collection of entities that are
skipping to change at line 304 skipping to change at line 646
Transport plane: provides bi-directional or unidirectional transfer Transport plane: provides bi-directional or unidirectional transfer
of user information, from one location to another. It can also of user information, from one location to another. It can also
provide transfer of some control and network management information. provide transfer of some control and network management information.
The Transport Plane is layered; it is equivalent to the Transport The Transport Plane is layered; it is equivalent to the Transport
Network defined in G.805. Network defined in G.805.
User Network Interface (UNI): interfaces are located between User Network Interface (UNI): interfaces are located between
protocol controllers between a user and a control domain. protocol controllers between a user and a control domain.
W.Alanqar et al. - Expires May 2004 6 W.Alanqar et al. - Expires May 2004 13
Appendix 2 - ASON Routing Terminology
This document makes use of the following terms:
Routing Area (RA): represents functionally either an Autonomous
System (AS) or a canonical IGP routing area, both are sometimes
referred to as routing regions (or simply regions).
Routing Database (RDB): repository for the local topology, network
topology, reachability, and other routing information that is
updated as part of the routing information exchange and may
additionally contain information that is configured. The RDB may
contain routing information for more than one Routing Area (RA).
Routing Components: ASON routing architecture functions. These
functions can be classified as protocol independent (Link Resource
Manager or LRM, Routing Controller or RC) and protocol specific
(Protocol Controller or PC).
- Routing Controller (RC): handles (abstract) information needed for
routing and the routing information exchange with peering RCs by
operating on the RDB. The RC has access to a view of the RDB. The RC
is protocol independent.
Note: Since the RDB may contain routing information pertaining to
multiple RAs (and hence possibly multiple layer networks), the RCs
accessing the RDB may share the routing information.
- Link Resource Manager (LRM): supplies all the relevant component
and TE link information to the RC. It informs the RC about any state
changes of the link resources it controls.
- Protocol Controller (PC): handles protocol specific message
exchanges according to the reference point over which the
information is exchanged (e.g. E-NNI, I-NNI), and internal exchanges
with the RC. The PC function is protocol dependent.
Internal Links: links that are fully encapsulated by a routing area
at a given level of hierarchy. Internal links to a child RA may be
hidden from the parent RAs view.
External Links: links that are incident upon the routing area. Note
that external links to a routing area at one level of the hierarchy
may be internal links in the parent routing area.
W.Alanqar et al. - Expires May 2004 14
Full Copyright Statement Full Copyright Statement
"Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph
skipping to change at line 334 skipping to change at line 723
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
W.Alanqar et al. - Expires May 2004 7 W.Alanqar et al. - Expires May 2004 15
 End of changes. 

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.23, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/