draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-reqts-03.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-reqts-04.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 David Meyer (Cisco Systems) Category: Informational David Meyer (Cisco Systems)
Lyndon Ong (Ciena) Lyndon Ong (Ciena)
Expiration Date: October 2004 Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel) Expiration Date: November 2004 Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel)
Jonathan Sadler (Tellabs) Jonathan Sadler (Tellabs)
Stephen Shew (Nortel) Stephen Shew (Nortel)
April 2004 May 2004
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-03.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-reqts-04.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 49
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
for an Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON) as defined by for an Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON) as defined by
ITU-T. ITU-T.
W.Alanqar et al. - Expires September 2004 1 W.Alanqar et al. - Expires November 2004 1
Table of Contents Table of Contents
Status of this Memo .............................................. 1 Status of this Memo .............................................. 1
Abstract ......................................................... 1 Abstract ......................................................... 1
1. Contributors .................................................. 2 1. Contributors .................................................. 2
2. Conventions used in this document ............................. 2 2. Conventions used in this document ............................. 2
3. Introduction .................................................. 2 3. Introduction .................................................. 2
4. ASON Routing Architecture and Requirements .................... 4 4. ASON Routing Architecture and Requirements .................... 4
4.1 Multiple Hierarchical Levels of ASON Routing Areas (RAs) ..... 5 4.1 Multiple Hierarchical Levels of ASON Routing Areas (RAs) ..... 5
skipping to change at line 73 skipping to change at line 74
4.4 Evolution .................................................... 7 4.4 Evolution .................................................... 7
4.5 Routing Attributes ........................................... 8 4.5 Routing Attributes ........................................... 8
4.5.1 Taxonomy of Routing Attributes ............................. 8 4.5.1 Taxonomy of Routing Attributes ............................. 8
4.5.2 Commonly Advertised Information ............................ 9 4.5.2 Commonly Advertised Information ............................ 9
4.5.3 Node Attributes ............................................ 9 4.5.3 Node Attributes ............................................ 9
4.5.4 Link Attributes ............................................ 9 4.5.4 Link Attributes ............................................ 9
5. Security Considerations ...................................... 11 5. Security Considerations ...................................... 11
6. Conclusions .................................................. 11 6. Conclusions .................................................. 11
7. Acknowledgements ............................................. 13 7. Acknowledgements ............................................. 13
8. Intellectual Property Considerations ......................... 13 8. Intellectual Property Considerations ......................... 13
8.1 IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement .............................. 13 8.1 IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement .............................. 14
9. References ................................................... 14 9. References ................................................... 14
9.1 Normative References ........................................ 14 9.1 Normative References ........................................ 14
9.2 Informative References ...................................... 14
10. Author's Addresses .......................................... 14 10. Author's Addresses .......................................... 14
Appendix 1: ASON Terminology .................................... 16 Appendix 1: ASON Terminology .................................... 16
Appendix 2: ASON Routing Terminology ............................ 18 Appendix 2: ASON Routing Terminology ............................ 18
Full Copyright Statement ........................................ 19 Full Copyright Statement ........................................ 19
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.
skipping to change at line 101 skipping to change at line 103
[RFC2119]. [RFC2119].
3. Introduction 3. Introduction
The GMPLS suite of protocols provides among other capabilities The GMPLS suite of protocols provides among other capabilities
support for controlling different switching technologies. These support for controlling different switching technologies. These
include support for requesting TDM connections utilizing SONET/SDH include support for requesting TDM connections utilizing SONET/SDH
(see ANSI T1.105/ITU-T G.707) as well as Optical Transport Networks (see ANSI T1.105/ITU-T G.707) as well as Optical Transport Networks
(OTN, see ITU-T G.709). However, there are certain capabilities that (OTN, see ITU-T G.709). However, there are certain capabilities that
are needed to support the ITU-T G.8080 control plane architecture are needed to support the ITU-T G.8080 control plane architecture
for Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON). Therefore, it is
W.Alanqar et al. - Expires October 2004 2 W.Alanqar et al. - Expires November 2004 2
for Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON). Therefore, it is
desirable to understand the corresponding requirements for the GMPLS desirable to understand the corresponding requirements for the GMPLS
protocol suite. The ASON control plane architecture is defined in protocol suite. The ASON control plane architecture is defined in
[G.8080], ASON routing requirements are identified in [G.7715], and [G.8080], ASON routing requirements are identified in [G.7715], and
in [G.7715.1] for ASON link state protocols. These Recommendations in [G.7715.1] for ASON link state protocols. These Recommendations
apply to all G.805 layer networks (e.g. SDH and OTN), and provide apply to all G.805 layer networks (e.g. SDH and OTN), and provide
protocol neutral functional requirements and architecture. protocol neutral functional requirements and architecture.
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 functionality of suite of protocols to support the capabilities and functionality of
ASON control planes. This document summarizes the ASON requirements ASON control planes. This document summarizes the ASON requirements
skipping to change at line 156 skipping to change at line 158
the number of RA levels, as well as aggregation and segmentation the number of RA levels, as well as aggregation and segmentation
of RAs. of RAs.
The description of the ASON routing architecture provides for a The description of the ASON routing architecture provides for a
conceptual reference architecture, with definition of functional conceptual reference architecture, with definition of functional
components and common information elements to enable end-to-end components and common information elements to enable end-to-end
routing in the case of protocol heterogeneity and facilitate routing in the case of protocol heterogeneity and facilitate
management of ASON networks. This description is only conceptual: no management of ASON networks. This description is only conceptual: no
physical partitioning of these functions is implied. physical partitioning of these functions is implied.
W.Alanqar et al. - Expires October 2004 3 W.Alanqar et al. - Expires November 2004 3
4. ASON Routing Architecture and Requirements 4. ASON Routing Architecture and Requirements
The fundamental architectural concept is the RA and it's related The fundamental architectural concept is the RA and it's related
functional components (see Appendix 2 on terminology). The routing functional components (see Appendix 2 on terminology). The routing
services offered by a RA are provided by a Routing Performer (RP). services offered by a RA are provided by a Routing Performer (RP). A
An RP is responsible for a single RA, and it MAY be functionally RP is responsible for a single RA, and it MAY be functionally
realized using distributed Routing Controllers (RC). The RC, itself, realized using distributed Routing Controllers (RC). The RC, itself,
MAY be implemented as a cluster of distributed entities (ASON refers MAY be implemented as a cluster of distributed entities (ASON refers
to the cluster as a Routing Control Domain (RCD)). The RC components to the cluster as a Routing Control Domain (RCD)). The RC components
for a RA receive routing topology information from their associated for a RA receive routing topology information from their associated
Link Resource Manager(s) (LRMs) and store this information in the Link Resource Manager(s) (LRMs) and store this information in the
Routing Information Database (RDB). The RDB is replicated at each RC Routing Information Database (RDB). The RDB is replicated at each RC
bounded to the same Routing Area (RA), and MAY contain information bounded to the same RA, and MAY contain information about multiple
about multiple transport plane network layers. Whenever the routing transport plane network layers. Whenever the routing topology
topology changes, the LRM informs the corresponding RC, which in changes, the LRM informs the corresponding RC, which in turn updates
turn updates its associated RDB. In order to assure RDB its associated RDB. In order to assure RDB synchronization, the RCs
synchronization, the RCs co-operate and exchange routing co-operate and exchange routing information. Path computation
information. Path computation functions MAY exist in each RC, MAY functions MAY exist in each RC, MAY exist on selected RCs within the
exist on selected RCs within the same RA, or MAY be centralized for same RA, or MAY be centralized for the RA.
the RA.
In this context, communication between RCs within the same RA is In this context, communication between RCs within the same RA is
realized using a particular routing protocol (or multiple realized using a particular routing protocol (or multiple
protocols). In ASON, the communication component is represented by protocols). In ASON, the communication component is represented by
the protocol controller (PC) component(s) and the protocol messages the protocol controller (PC) component(s) and the protocol messages
are conveyed over the ASON control plane's Signaling Control Network are conveyed over the ASON control plane's Signaling Control Network
(SCN). The PC MAY convey information for one or more transport (SCN). The PC MAY convey information for one or more transport
network layers (refer to Section 4.2 Note). The RC is protocol network layers (refer to Section 4.2 Note). The RC is protocol
independent and RC communications MAY be realized by multiple, independent and RC communications MAY be realized by multiple,
different PCs within a RA. different PCs within a RA.
The ASON routing architecture defines a multi-level routing The ASON routing architecture defines a multi-level routing
hierarchy of RAs based on a containment model to support routing hierarchy of RAs based on a containment model to support routing
information abstraction. [G.7715.1] defines the ASON hierarchical information abstraction. [G.7715.1] defines the ASON hierarchical
link state routing protocol requirements for communication of link state routing protocol requirements for communication of
routing information within an RA (one level) to support hierarchical routing information within an RA (one level) to support hierarchical
routing information dissemination (including summarized routing routing information dissemination (including summarized routing
information for other levels). The Communication between any of the information for other levels). The communication between any of the
other functional component(s) (e.g. SCN, LRM, and between RCDs (RC- other functional component(s) (e.g. SCN, LRM, and between RCDs (RC-
RC communication between RAs)), is outside the scope of [G.7715.1] RC communication between RAs)), is outside the scope of [G.7715.1]
protocol requirements and, thus, is also outside the scope of this protocol requirements and, thus, is also outside the scope of this
document. document.
ASON Routing components are identified by identifiers that are drawn ASON Routing components are identified by identifiers that are drawn
from different name spaces (see [G.7715.1]). These are control plane from different name spaces (see [G.7715.1]). These are control plane
identifiers for transport resources, components, and SCN addresses. identifiers for transport resources, components, and SCN addresses.
The formats of those identifiers in a routing protocol realization The formats of those identifiers in a routing protocol realization
SHALL be implementation specific and outside the scope of this SHALL be implementation specific and outside the scope of this
document. document.
The failure of a RC, or the failure of communications between RCs, The failure of a RC, or the failure of communications between RCs,
and the subsequent recover from the failure condition MUST NOT and the subsequent recovery from the failure condition MUST NOT
W.Alanqar et al. - Expires October 2004 4
disrupt calls in progress and their associated connections. Calls disrupt calls in progress and their associated connections. Calls
W.Alanqar et al. - Expires November 2004 4
being set up MAY fail to complete, and the call setup service MAY be being set up MAY fail to complete, and the call setup service MAY be
unavailable during recovery actions. unavailable during recovery actions.
4.1 Multiple Hierarchical Levels of ASON Routing Areas (RAs) 4.1 Multiple Hierarchical Levels of ASON Routing Areas (RAs)
[G.8080] introduces the concept of Routing Area (RA) in reference to [G.8080] introduces the concept of Routing Area (RA) in reference to
a network subdivision. RAs provide for routing information a network subdivision. RAs provide for routing information
abstraction. Except for the single RA case, RAs are hierarchically abstraction. Except for the single RA case, RAs are hierarchically
contained: a higher level (parent) RA contains lower level (child) contained: a higher level (parent) RA contains lower level (child)
RAs that in turn MAY also contain RAs, etc. Thus, RAs contain RAs RAs that in turn MAY also contain RAs, etc. Thus, RAs contain RAs
skipping to change at line 236 skipping to change at line 237
architectural hierarchical organization of RAs. It does not restrict architectural hierarchical organization of RAs. It does not restrict
a specific routing protocol's realization (e.g. OSPF multi-areas, a specific routing protocol's realization (e.g. OSPF multi-areas,
path computation, etc.). Moreover, the realization of the routing path computation, etc.). Moreover, the realization of the routing
paradigm to support a hierarchical organization of RAs and the paradigm to support a hierarchical organization of RAs and the
number of hierarchical RA levels to be supported is routing protocol number of hierarchical RA levels to be supported is routing protocol
specific and outside the scope of this document. specific and outside the scope of this document.
In a multi-level hierarchy of RAs, it is necessary to distinguish In a multi-level hierarchy of RAs, it is necessary to distinguish
among RCs for the different levels of the RA hierarchy. Before any among RCs for the different levels of the RA hierarchy. Before any
pair of RCs establishes communication, they MUST verify they are pair of RCs establishes communication, they MUST verify they are
bounded to the same parent RA (see Section 4.2). A RA identifier (RA bound to the same parent RA (see Section 4.2). A RA identifier (RA
ID) is required to provide the scope within which the RCs can ID) is required to provide the scope within which the RCs can
communicate. To distinguish between RCs bounded to the same RA, an communicate. To distinguish between RCs bound to the same RA, an RC
RC identifier (RC ID) is required; the RC ID MUST be unique within identifier (RC ID) is required; the RC ID MUST be unique within its
its containing RA. containing RA.
A RA represents a partition of the data plane and its identifier A RA represents a partition of the data plane, and its identifier
(i.e. RA ID) is used within the control plane as a reference to the (i.e. RA ID) is used within the control plane as a reference to the
data plane partition. Each RA SHALL be uniquely identifiable within data plane partition. Each RA within a carrier's network SHALL be
a carrier's network. RA IDs MAY be associated with a transport plane uniquely identifiable. RA IDs MAY be associated with a transport
name space whereas RC IDs are associated with a control plane name plane name space whereas RC IDs are associated with a control plane
space. name space.
4.2 Hierarchical Routing Information Dissemination 4.2 Hierarchical Routing Information Dissemination
Routing information can be exchanged between RCs bounded to adjacent Routing information can be exchanged between RCs bound to adjacent
levels of the RA hierarchy i.e. Level N+1 and N, where Level N levels of the RA hierarchy i.e. Level N+1 and N, where Level N
represents the RAs contained by Level N+1. The links connecting RAs represents the RAs contained by Level N+1. The links connecting RAs
MAY be viewed as external links (inter-RA links), and the links MAY be viewed as external links (inter-RA links), and the links
representing connectivity within a RA MAY be viewed as internal representing connectivity within a RA MAY be viewed as internal
links (intra-RA links). The external links to a RA at one level of links (intra-RA links). The external links to a RA at one level of
the hierarchy may be internal links in the parent RA. Intra-RA links the hierarchy may be internal links in the parent RA. Intra-RA links
of a child RA MAY be hidden from the parent RA's view. of a child RA MAY be hidden from the parent RA's view.
The physical location of RCs for adjacent RA levels, their The physical location of RCs for adjacent RA levels, their
relationship and their communication protocol(s) are outside the relationship and their communication protocol(s) are outside the
scope of this document. No assumption is made regarding how RCs scope of this document. No assumption is made regarding how RCs
communicate between adjacent RA levels. If routing information is communicate between adjacent RA levels. If routing information is
W.Alanqar et al. - Expires October 2004 5 W.Alanqar et al. - Expires November 2004 5
exchanged between a RC, its parent, and its child RCs, it SHOULD exchanged between a RC, its parent, and its child RCs, it SHOULD
include reachability and MAY include (upon policy decision) node and include reachability and MAY include (upon policy decision) node and
link topology. Only the RCs of the parent RA communicate, RCs of one link topology. Communication between RAs only takes place between
childĘs RA never communicate with the RCs of other child RAs. There RCs with a parent/child relationship. RCs of one RA never
SHOULD not be any dependencies on the different routing protocols communicate with RCs of another RA at the same level. There SHOULD
used within a RA or in different RAs. not be any dependencies on the different routing protocols used
within a RA or in different RAs.
Multiple RCs bounded to the same RA MAY transform (filter, Multiple RCs bound to the same RA MAY transform (filter, summarize,
summarize, etc.) and then forward information to RCs at different etc.) and then forward information to RCs at different levels.
levels. However in this case the resulting information at the However in this case the resulting information at the receiving
receiving level must be self-consistent; this MAY be achieved using level must be self-consistent; this MAY be achieved using a number
a number of mechanisms. of mechanisms.
Note: there is no implied relationship between multi-layer transport Note: there is no implied relationship between multi-layer transport
networks and multi-level routing. Implementations may support a networks and multi-level routing. Implementations may support a
hierarchical routing topology (multi-level) with a single routing hierarchical routing topology (multi-level) with a single routing
protocol instance for multiple transport switching layers or a protocol instance for multiple transport switching layers or a
hierarchical routing topology for one transport switching layer. hierarchical routing topology for one transport switching layer.
1. Type of Information Exchanged 1. Type of Information Exchanged
The type of information flowing upward (i.e. Level N to Level 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 N+1) and the information flowing downward (i.e. Level N+1 to
Level N) are used for similar purposes, namely, the exchange of Level N) are used for similar purposes, namely, the exchange of
reachability information and summarized topology information to reachability information and summarized topology information to
allow routing across multiple RAs. The summarization of topology allow routing across multiple RAs. The summarization of topology
information may impact the accuracy of routing and MAY require information may impact the accuracy of routing and MAY require
additional path calculation. additional path calculation.
The following information exchange are expected: The following information exchanges are expected:
- Level N+1 visibility to Level N reachability and topology (or - Level N+1 visibility to Level N reachability and topology (or
upward information communication) allowing RC(s) at Level N+1 upward information communication) allowing RC(s) at Level N+1
to determine the reachable endpoints from Level N. to determine the reachable endpoints from Level N.
- Level N visibility to Level N+1 reachability and topology (or - Level N visibility to Level N+1 reachability and topology (or
downward information communication) allowing RC(s) bounded to a downward information communication) allowing RC(s) bounded to a
RA at Level N to develop paths to reachable endpoints outside RA at Level N to develop paths to reachable endpoints outside
of the RA. of the RA.
2. Interactions between Upward and Downward Communication 2. Interactions between Upward and Downward Communication
When both upward and downward information exchanges contain When both upward and downward information exchanges contain
endpoint reachability information, a feedback loop could endpoint reachability information, a feedback loop could
potentially be created. Consequently, the routing protocol MUST potentially be created. Consequently, the routing protocol MUST
include a method to: include a method to:
- prevent information propagated from a Level N+1 RA's RC into - prevent information propagated from a Level N+1 RA's RC into
the Level N RA's RC to be re-introduced into the Level N+1 RA's the Level N RA's RC from being re-introduced into the Level N+1
RC, and RA's RC, and
- prevent information propagated from a Level N-1 RA's RC into - prevent information propagated from a Level N-1 RA's RC into
the Level N RA's RC to be re-introduced into the Level N-1 RA's
W.Alanqar et al. - Expires October 2004 6 W.Alanqar et al. - Expires November 2004 6
RC. the Level N RA's RC from being re-introduced into the Level N-1
RA's RC.
The routing protocol SHALL differentiate the routing information The routing protocol SHALL differentiate the routing information
originated at a given level RA from derived routing information originated at a given level RA from derived routing information
(received from external RAs), even when this information is (received from external RAs), even when this information is
forwarded by another RC at the same level. This is a necessary forwarded by another RC at the same level. This is a necessary
condition to be fulfilled by routing protocols to be loop free. condition to be fulfilled by routing protocols to be loop free.
3. Method of Communication 3. Method of Communication
Two approaches exist for communication between Level N and N+1. Two approaches exist for communication between Level N and N+1.
skipping to change at line 351 skipping to change at line 353
systems containing the routing functions for different levels. systems containing the routing functions for different levels.
This communication interface and mechanisms are outside the This communication interface and mechanisms are outside the
scope of this document. scope of this document.
4.3 Configuration 4.3 Configuration
4.3.1 Configuring the Multi-Level Hierarchy 4.3.1 Configuring the Multi-Level Hierarchy
The RC MUST support static (i.e. operator assisted) and MAY support The RC MUST support static (i.e. operator assisted) and MAY support
automated configuration of the information describing its automated configuration of the information describing its
relationship to parent and its child within the hierarchical relationship to its parent and its child within the hierarchical
structure (including RA ID and RC ID). When applied recursively, the structure (including RA ID and RC ID). When applied recursively, the
whole hierarchy is thus configured. whole hierarchy is thus configured.
4.3.2 Configuring RC Adjacencies 4.3.2 Configuring RC Adjacencies
The RC MUST support static (i.e. operator assisted) and MAY support The RC MUST support static (i.e. operator assisted) and MAY support
automated configuration of the information describing its associated automated configuration of the information describing its associated
PC adjacencies to other RCs bounded to the same parent RA. The adjacencies to other RCs within a RA. The routing protocol SHOULD
routing protocol SHOULD support all the types of RC adjacencies support all the types of RC adjacencies described in Section 9 of
described in Section 9 of [G.7715]. The latter includes congruent [G.7715]. The latter includes congruent topology (with distributed
topology (with distributed RC) and hubbed topology (e.g. note that RC) and hubbed topology (e.g. note that the latter does not
the latter does not automatically imply designated RC). automatically imply designated RC).
4.4 Evolution 4.4 Evolution
The containment relationships of RAs MAY change, motivated by events The containment relationships of RAs MAY change, motivated by events
such as mergers, acquisitions, and divestitures. such as mergers, acquisitions, and divestitures.
W.Alanqar et al. - Expires November 2004 7
The routing protocol SHOULD be capable of supporting architectural The routing protocol SHOULD be capable of supporting architectural
evolution in terms of number of hierarchical levels of RAs, as well evolution in terms of number of hierarchical levels of RAs, as well
as aggregation and segmentation of RAs. RA ID uniqueness within an
W.Alanqar et al. - Expires October 2004 7
as aggregation and segmentation of RAs. RA IDs uniqueness within an
administrative domain MAY facilitate these operations. The routing administrative domain MAY facilitate these operations. The routing
protocol is not expected to automatically initiate and/or execute protocol is not expected to automatically initiate and/or execute
these operations. Reconfiguration of the RA hierarchy MAY not these operations. Reconfiguration of the RA hierarchy MAY not
disrupt calls in progress, though calls being set up may fail to disrupt calls in progress, though calls being set up may fail to
complete, and the call setup service may be unavailable during complete, and the call setup service may be unavailable during
reconfiguration actions. reconfiguration actions.
4.5 Routing Attributes 4.5 Routing Attributes
Routing for transport networks is performed on a per layer basis, Routing for transport networks is performed on a per layer basis,
where the routing paradigms MAY differ among layers and within a where the routing paradigms MAY differ among layers and within a
layer. Not all equipment support the same set of transport layers or layer. Not all equipment supports the same set of transport layers
the same degree of connection flexibility at any given layer. A or the same degree of connection flexibility at any given layer. A
server layer trail may support various clients, involving different server layer trail may support various clients, involving different
adaptation functions. Additionally, equipment may support variable adaptation functions. Additionally, equipment may support variable
adaptation functionality, whereby a single server layer trail adaptation functionality, whereby a single server layer trail
dynamically supports different multiplexing structures. As a result, dynamically supports different multiplexing structures. As a result,
routing information MAY include layer specific, layer independent, routing information MAY include layer specific, layer independent,
and client/server adaptation information. and client/server adaptation information.
4.5.1 Taxonomy of Routing Attributes 4.5.1 Taxonomy of Routing Attributes
Attributes can be organized according to the following categories: Attributes can be organized according to the following categories:
skipping to change at line 412 skipping to change at line 413
- Inherited or layer specific (client layers can inherit some - Inherited or layer specific (client layers can inherit some
attributes from the server layer while other attributes like attributes from the server layer while other attributes like
Link Capacity are specified by layer). Link Capacity are specified by layer).
(Component) link attributes MAY be statically or automatically (Component) link attributes MAY be statically or automatically
configured for each transport network layer. This may lead to configured for each transport network layer. This may lead to
unnecessary repetition. Hence, the inheritance property of unnecessary repetition. Hence, the inheritance property of
attributes MAY also be used to optimize the configuration process. attributes MAY also be used to optimize the configuration process.
ASON uses the term, SNP, for the control plane representation of a ASON uses the term, SubNetwork Point (SNP), for the control plane
transport plane resource. The control plane representation and representation of a transport plane resource. The control plane
transport plane topology is NOT assumed to be congruent, the control representation and transport plane topology is NOT assumed to be
plane representation SHALL not be restricted by the physical congruent, the control plane representation SHALL not be restricted
topology. The relational grouping of SNPs for routing is termed a by the physical topology. The relational grouping of SNPs for
SNPP. The routing function understands topology in terms of SNPP routing is termed a SNP Pool (SNPP). The routing function
links. Grouping MAY be based on different link attributes (e.g., understands topology in terms of SNPP links. Grouping MAY be based
SRLG information, link weight, etc). on different link attributes (e.g., SRLG information, link weight,
etc).
Two RAs may be linked by one or more SNPP links. Multiple SNPP links Two RAs may be linked by one or more SNPP links. Multiple SNPP links
MAY be required when component links are not equivalent for routing MAY be required when component links are not equivalent for routing
W.Alanqar et al. - Expires November 2004 8
purposes with respect to the RAs they are attached to, or to the purposes with respect to the RAs they are attached to, or to the
containing RA, or when smaller groupings are required. containing RA, or when smaller groupings are required.
W.Alanqar et al. - Expires October 2004 8
4.5.2 Commonly Advertised Information 4.5.2 Commonly Advertised Information
Advertisements MAY contain the following common set of information Advertisements MAY contain the following common set of information
regardless of whether they are link or node related: regardless of whether they are link or node related:
- RA ID of which the advertisement is bounded - RA ID of the RA to which the advertisement is bounded
- RC ID of the entity generating the advertisement - RC ID of the entity generating the advertisement
- Information to uniquely identify advertisements - Information to uniquely identify advertisements
- Information to determine whether an advertisement has been updated - Information to determine whether an advertisement has been updated
- Information to indicate when an advertisement has been derived - Information to indicate when an advertisement has been derived
from a different level RA. from a different level RA.
4.5.3 Node Attributes 4.5.3 Node Attributes
All nodes belong to a RA, hence, the RA ID can be considered an 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 attribute of all nodes. Given that no distinction is made between
abstract nodes and those that cannot be decomposed any further, the abstract nodes and those that cannot be decomposed any further, the
same attributes MAY be used for their advertisement. In the same attributes MAY be used for their advertisement. In the
following tables, Capability refers to level of support required in following tables, Capability refers to the level of support required
the realization of a link state routing protocol, whereas Usage in the realization of a link state routing protocol, whereas Usage
refers to degree of operational and implementation flexibility. refers to the degree of operational and implementation flexibility.
The following Node Attributes are defined: The following Node Attributes are defined:
Attribute Capability Usage Attribute Capability Usage
----------- ----------- --------- ----------- ----------- ---------
Node ID REQUIRED REQUIRED Node ID REQUIRED REQUIRED
Reachability REQUIRED OPTIONAL Reachability REQUIRED OPTIONAL
Table 1. Node Attributes Table 1. Node Attributes
skipping to change at line 469 skipping to change at line 471
reachable by the associated node. It MAY be advertised as a set of reachable by the associated node. It MAY be advertised as a set of
associated external (e.g. UNI) address/address prefixes or a set of associated external (e.g. UNI) address/address prefixes or a set of
associated SNPP link IDs/SNPP ID prefixes, the selection of which associated SNPP link IDs/SNPP ID prefixes, the selection of which
MUST be consistent within the applicable scope. These are control MUST be consistent within the applicable scope. These are control
plane identifiers, the formats of these identifiers in a protocol plane identifiers, the formats of these identifiers in a protocol
realization is implementation specific and outside the scope of this realization is implementation specific and outside the scope of this
document. document.
Note: no distinction is made between nodes that may have further Note: no distinction is made between nodes that may have further
internal details (i.e., abstract nodes) and those that cannot be internal details (i.e., abstract nodes) and those that cannot be
decomposed any further. Hence the attributes of a node are not be decomposed any further. Hence the attributes of a node are not
considered only as single switch attributes but MAY apply to a node considered only as single switch attributes but MAY apply to a node
at a higher level of the hierarchy that represents a sub-network. at a higher level of the hierarchy that represents a sub-network.
4.5.4 Link Attributes 4.5.4 Link Attributes
The following Link Attributes are defined: The following Link Attributes are defined:
W.Alanqar et al. - Expires November 2004 9
Link Attribute Capability Usage Link Attribute Capability Usage
--------------- ----------- --------- --------------- ----------- ---------
Local SNPP link ID REQUIRED REQUIRED Local SNPP link ID REQUIRED REQUIRED
W.Alanqar et al. - Expires October 2004 9
Remote SNPP link ID REQUIRED REQUIRED Remote SNPP link ID REQUIRED REQUIRED
Layer Specific Characteristics see Table 3 Layer Specific Characteristics see Table 3
Table 2. Link Attributes Table 2. Link Attributes
The SNPP link ID name MUST be sufficient to uniquely identify the The SNPP link ID MUST be sufficient to uniquely identify the
corresponding transport plane resource taking into account corresponding transport plane resource taking into account
separation of data and control planes (see Section 4.5.1, the separation of data and control planes (see Section 4.5.1, the
control plane representation and transport plane topology is not control plane representation and transport plane topology is not
assumed to be congruent). The SNPP link ID format is routing assumed to be congruent). The SNPP link ID format is routing
protocol specific. protocol specific.
Note: when the remote end of a SNPP link is located outside of the Note: when the remote end of a SNPP link is located outside of the
RA, the remote SNPP link ID is OPTIONAL. RA, the remote SNPP link ID is OPTIONAL.
The following link characteristic attributes are defined: The following link characteristic attributes are defined:
skipping to change at line 510 skipping to change at line 511
layer network. layer network.
- Link Weight: The metric indicating the relative desirability of a - Link Weight: The metric indicating the relative desirability of a
particular link over another e.g. during path computation. particular link over another e.g. during path computation.
- Resource Class: This corresponds to the set of administrative - Resource Class: This corresponds to the set of administrative
groups assigned by the operator to this link. A link MAY belong to groups assigned by the operator to this link. A link MAY belong to
zero, one or more administrative groups. zero, one or more administrative groups.
- Connection Types: This attribute identifies whether the local SNP - Connection Types: This attribute identifies whether the local SNP
represents a TCP, CP, or can be flexibly configured as a TCP. represents a Termination Connection Point (CP), a Connection Point
(CP), or can be flexibly configured as a TCP.
- Link Capacity: This provides the sum of the available and - Link Capacity: This provides the sum of the available and
potential bandwidth capacity for a particular network transport potential bandwidth capacity for a particular network transport
layer. Other capacity measures MAY be further considered. layer. Other capacity measures MAY be further considered.
- Link Availability: This represents the survivability capability - Link Availability: This represents the survivability capability
such as the protection type associated with the link. such as the protection type associated with the link.
- Diversity Support: This represents diversity information such as - Diversity Support: This represents diversity information such as
the SRLG information associated with the link. the SRLG information associated with the link.
- Local Adaptation Support: This indicates the set of client layer - Local Adaptation Support: This indicates the set of client layer
adaptations supported by the TCP associated with the Local SNPP. adaptations supported by the TCP associated with the Local SNPP.
This is only applicable when the local SNP represents a TCP or can This is only applicable when the local SNP represents a TCP or can
be flexibly configured as a TCP. be flexibly configured as a TCP.
Link Characteristics Capability Usage Link Characteristics Capability Usage
----------------------- ---------- --------- ----------------------- ---------- ---------
Signal Type REQUIRED OPTIONAL Signal Type REQUIRED OPTIONAL
W.Alanqar et al. - Expires November 2004 10
Link Weight REQUIRED OPTIONAL Link Weight REQUIRED OPTIONAL
Resource Class REQUIRED OPTIONAL Resource Class REQUIRED OPTIONAL
Local Connection Types REQUIRED OPTIONAL Local Connection Types REQUIRED OPTIONAL
Link Capacity REQUIRED OPTIONAL Link Capacity REQUIRED OPTIONAL
W.Alanqar et al. - Expires October 2004 10
Link Availability OPTIONAL OPTIONAL Link Availability OPTIONAL OPTIONAL
Diversity Support OPTIONAL OPTIONAL Diversity Support OPTIONAL OPTIONAL
Local Adaptation support OPTIONAL OPTIONAL Local Adaptation support OPTIONAL OPTIONAL
Table 3. Link Characteristics Table 3. Link Characteristics
Note: separate advertisements of layer specific attributes MAY be Note: separate advertisements of layer specific attributes MAY be
chosen. However this may lead to unnecessary duplication. This can chosen. However, this may lead to unnecessary duplication. This can
be avoided using the inheritance property, so that the attributes be avoided using the inheritance property, so that the attributes
derivable from the local adaptation information do not need to be derivable from the local adaptation information do not need to be
advertised. Thus, an optimization MAY be used when several layers advertised. Thus, an optimization MAY be used when several layers
are present by indicating when an attribute is inheritable from a are present by indicating when an attribute is inheritable from a
server layer. server layer.
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
ASON routing protocol MUST deliver the operational security ASON routing protocol MUST deliver the operational security
objectives where required. These objectives do not necessarily imply objectives where required. These objectives do not necessarily imply
skipping to change at line 565 skipping to change at line 567
established means. established means.
6. Conclusions 6. Conclusions
The description of the ASON routing architecture and components is The description of the ASON routing architecture and components is
provided in terms of routing functionality. This description is only provided in terms of routing functionality. This description is only
conceptual: no physical partitioning of these functions is implied. conceptual: no physical partitioning of these functions is implied.
In summary, the ASON routing architecture assumes: In summary, the ASON routing architecture assumes:
- A network is subdivided into ASON RAs, which MAY support multiple - A network is subdivided into ASON RAs, which MAY support multiple
routing protocols, no one-to-one relationship SHALL be assumed routing protocols, no one-to-one relationship SHALL be assumes.
- Routing Controllers (RC) provide for the exchange of routing - Routing Controllers (RC) provide for the exchange of routing
information (primitives) for the RA. The RC is protocol information (primitives) for the RA. The RC is protocol
independent and MAY be realized by multiple, different protocol independent and MAY be realized by multiple, different protocol
controllers within a RA. The routing information exchanged between controllers within a RA. The routing information exchanged between
RCs SHALL be subject to policy constraints imposed at reference RCs SHALL be subject to policy constraints imposed at reference
points (External- and Internal-NNI) points (External- and Internal-NNI).
- A multi-level RA hierarchy based on containment, only the RCs of - In a multi-level RA hierarchy based on containment, communication
the parent RA communicate. RCs of child RAs never communicate with between RCs of different RAs only happens when there is a parent/
the RCs of other child RAs. There SHOULD not be any dependencies child relationship between the RAs. RCs of child RAs never
on the different routing protocols used within a child RA and that communicate with the RCs of other child RAs. There SHOULD not be
of its parent. The routing information exchanged within the parent any dependencies on the different routing protocols used within a
RA SHALL be independent of both the routing protocol operating child RA and that of its parent. The routing information exchanged
within a child RA, and any control distribution choice(s), e.g. within the parent RA SHALL be independent of both the routing
centralized, fully distributed. protocol operating within a child RA, and any control distribution
choice(s), e.g. centralized, fully distributed.
- For a RA, the set of RCs is referred to as an ASON routing - For a RA, the set of RCs is referred to as an ASON routing
(control) domain. The routing information exchanged between (control) domain. The routing information exchanged between
routing domains (inter-RA, i.e. inter-domain) SHALL be independent routing domains (inter-RA, i.e. inter-domain) SHALL be independent
W.Alanqar et al. - Expires November 2004 11
of both the intra-domain routing protocol(s), and the intra-domain of both the intra-domain routing protocol(s), and the intra-domain
control distribution choice(s), e.g. centralized, fully control distribution choice(s), e.g. centralized, fully
distributed. RCs bounded to different RA levels MAY be co-located distributed. RCs bounded to different RA levels MAY be co-located
within the same physical element or physically distributed. within the same physical element or physically distributed.
- The routing adjacency topology (i.e. the associated PC - The routing adjacency topology (i.e. the associated PC
W.Alanqar et al. - Expires October 2004 11
connectivity topology) and the transport network topology SHALL connectivity topology) and the transport network topology SHALL
NOT be assumed to be congruent NOT be assumed to be congruent.
- The routing topology SHALL support multiple links between nodes - The routing topology SHALL support multiple links between nodes
and RAs and RAs.
In summary, the following functionality is expected from GMPLS In summary, the following functionality is expected from GMPLS
routing to instantiate the ASON hierarchical routing architecture routing to instantiate the ASON hierarchical routing architecture
realization (see [G.7715] and [G.7715.1]): realization (see [G.7715] and [G.7715.1]):
- RAs SHALL be uniquely identifiable within a carrier's network, - RAs SHALL be uniquely identifiable within a carrier's network,
each having a unique RA ID within the carrier's network. each having a unique RA ID within the carrier's network.
- Within a RA (one level), the routing protocol SHALL support - Within a RA (one level), the routing protocol SHALL support
dissemination of hierarchical routing information (including dissemination of hierarchical routing information (including
summarized routing information for other levels) in support of an summarized routing information for other levels) in support of an
architecture of multiple hierarchical levels of RAs; the number of architecture of multiple hierarchical levels of RAs; the number of
skipping to change at line 618 skipping to change at line 621
[G.7715.1], divided between attributes pertaining to links and [G.7715.1], divided between attributes pertaining to links and
abstract nodes (each representing either a sub-network or simply a abstract nodes (each representing either a sub-network or simply a
node). [G.7715] recognizes that the manner in which the routing node). [G.7715] recognizes that the manner in which the routing
information is represented and exchanged will vary with the information is represented and exchanged will vary with the
routing protocol used. routing protocol used.
- The routing protocol SHALL converge such that the distributed RDBs - The routing protocol SHALL converge such that the distributed RDBs
become synchronized after a period of time. become synchronized after a period of time.
To support hierarchical routing information dissemination within an To support hierarchical routing information dissemination within an
RA, the routing protocol MUST deliver: RA, the routing protocol MUST deliver:
- processing of routing information exchanged between adjacent - Processing of routing information exchanged between adjacent
levels of the hierarchy (i.e. Level N+1 and N) including levels of the hierarchy (i.e. Level N+1 and N) including
reachability and upon policy decision summarized topology reachability and upon policy decision summarized topology
information information.
- when multiple RCs bound to a RA transform (filter, summarize, - Self-consistent information at the receiving level resulting from
etc.) and then forward information to RC(s) at different levels any transformation (filter, summarize, etc.) and forwarding of
that the resulting information at the receiving level is self- information from one RC to RC(s) at different levels when multiple
consistent RCs bound to a single RA.
- a mechanism to prevent re-introduction of information propagated - A mechanism to prevent re-introduction of information propagated
into the Level N RA's RC back to the adjacent level RA's RC from into the Level N RA's RC back to the adjacent level RA's RC from
which this information has been initially received. which this information has been initially received.
In order to support operator assisted changes in the containment In order to support operator assisted changes in the containment
relationships of RAs, the routing protocol SHALL support evolution relationships of RAs, the routing protocol SHALL support evolution
in terms of number of hierarchical levels of RAs. Example: support in terms of number of hierarchical levels of RAs. For example:
of non-disruptive operations such as adding and removing RAs at the support of non-disruptive operations such as adding and removing RAs
top/bottom of the hierarchy, adding or removing a hierarchical level at the top/bottom of the hierarchy, adding or removing a
of RAs in or from the middle of the hierarchy, as well as hierarchical level of RAs in or from the middle of the hierarchy, as
aggregation and segmentation of RAs. The number of hierarchical well as aggregation and segmentation of RAs. The number of
levels to be supported is routing protocol specific, and reflects a
containment relationship e.g. a RA insertion involves supporting a W.Alanqar et al. - Expires November 2004 12
different routing protocol domain in a portion of the network. hierarchical levels to be supported is routing protocol specific,
and reflects a containment relationship e.g. a RA insertion involves
supporting a different routing protocol domain in a portion of the
network.
W.Alanqar et al. - Expires October 2004 12
Reachability information (see Section 4.5.3) of the set of endpoints Reachability information (see Section 4.5.3) of the set of endpoints
reachable by a node may be advertised either as a set of UNI reachable by a node may be advertised either as a set of UNI
Transport Resource addresses/ address prefixes, or a set of Transport Resource addresses/ address prefixes, or a set of
associated SNPP link IDs/SNPP link ID prefixes, assigned and associated SNPP link IDs/SNPP link ID prefixes, assigned and
selected consistently in their applicability scope. The formats of selected consistently in their applicability scope. The formats of
the control plane identifiers in a protocol realization are the control plane identifiers in a protocol realization are
implementation specific. Use of a routing protocol within a RA implementation specific. Use of a routing protocol within a RA
should not restrict the choice of routing protocols for use in other should not restrict the choice of routing protocols for use in other
RAs (child or parent). RAs (child or parent).
As ASON does not restrict the control plane architecture choice As ASON does not restrict the control plane architecture choice
used, either a co-located architecture or a physically separated used, either a co-located architecture or a physically separated
architecture may be used. A collection of links and nodes such as a architecture may be used. A collection of links and nodes such as a
sub-network or RA MUST be able to represent itself to the wider sub-network or RA MUST be able to represent itself to the wider
network as a single logical entity with only its external links network as a single logical entity with only its external links
visible to the topology database. visible to the topology database.
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
and the ITU-T SG15/Q14 for their careful review and input.
8. Intellectual Property Considerations 8. Intellectual Property Considerations
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed
to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology
described in this document or the extent to which any license described in this document or the extent to which any license
under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it
represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any
such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights
skipping to change at line 688 skipping to change at line 694
of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository
at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention
any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other
proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required
to implement this standard. Please address the information to the to implement this standard. Please address the information to the
IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
W.Alanqar et al. - Expires November 2004 13
8.1 IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement 8.1 IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement
By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance
with RFC 3668. with [RFC3668].
W.Alanqar et al. - Expires October 2004 13
9. References 9. References
9.1 Normative References 9.1 Normative References
[RFC2026] S.Bradner, "The Internet Standards Process -- [RFC2026] S.Bradner, "The Internet Standards Process --
Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC2119] S.Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] 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.
[RFC3667] S.Bradner, "IETF Rights in Contributions", BCP 78,
RFC 3667, February 2004.
[RFC3668] S.Bradner, Ed., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3668, February 2004.
9.2 Informative References
[G.7715] ITU-T Rec. G.7715/Y.1306, "Architecture and [G.7715] ITU-T Rec. G.7715/Y.1306, "Architecture and
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 [G.7715.1] ITU-T Draft Rec. G.7715.1/Y.1706.1, "ASON Routing
Architecture and Requirements for Link State Architecture and Requirements for Link State
Protocols," November 2003. 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).
[HIER] K.Kompella and Y.Rekhter, "LSP Hierarchy with
Generalized MPLS TE," Internet draft (work in
progress), draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy, September 02.
10. Author's Addresses 10. Author's Addresses
Wesam Alanqar (Sprint) 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 (Cisco Systems) David Meyer (Cisco Systems)
EMail: dmm@1-4-5.net EMail: dmm@1-4-5.net
Lyndon Ong (Ciena Corporation) Lyndon Ong (Ciena Corporation)
W.Alanqar et al. - Expires November 2004 14
5965 Silver Creek Valley Rd, 5965 Silver Creek Valley Rd,
San Jose, CA 95128, USA San Jose, CA 95128, USA
Phone: +1 408 8347894 Phone: +1 408 8347894
EMail: lyong@ciena.com EMail: lyong@ciena.com
Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel) Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel)
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
W.Alanqar et al. - Expires October 2004 14
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
Phone: +1 613 7632462 Phone: +1 613 7632462
EMail: sdshew@nortelnetworks.com EMail: sdshew@nortelnetworks.com
W.Alanqar et al. - Expires October 2004 15 W.Alanqar et al. - Expires November 2004 15
Appendix 1: ASON Terminology Appendix 1: ASON Terminology
This document makes use of the following terms: This document makes use of the following terms:
Administrative domain: (Recommendation G.805 For the purposes of Administrative domain: (see Recommendation G.805) for the purposes
[G7715.1] an administrative domain represents the extent of of [G7715.1] an administrative domain represents the extent of
resources which belong to a single player such as a network resources which belong to a single player such as a network
operator, a service provider, or an end-user. Administrative domains operator, a service provider, or an end-user. Administrative domains
of different players do not overlap amongst themselves. of different players do not overlap amongst themselves.
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 (control) entities that (Control) Domain: represents a collection of (control) entities that
are grouped for a particular purpose. The control plane is are grouped for a particular purpose. The control plane is
skipping to change at line 790 skipping to change at line 801
administrative domain, further subdivisions of the control plane are administrative domain, further subdivisions of the control plane are
recursively applied. A routing control domain is an abstract entity recursively applied. A routing control domain is an abstract entity
that hides the details of the RC distribution. that hides the details of the RC distribution.
External NNI (E-NNI): interfaces are located between protocol External NNI (E-NNI): interfaces are located between protocol
controllers between control domains. controllers between control domains.
Internal NNI (I-NNI): interfaces are located between protocol Internal NNI (I-NNI): interfaces are located between protocol
controllers within control domains. controllers within control domains.
Link: [See Recommendation G.805] a "topological component" which Link: (see Recommendation G.805) a "topological component" which
describes a fixed relationship between a "subnetwork" or "access describes a fixed relationship between a "subnetwork" or "access
group" and another "subnetwork" or "access group". Links are not group" and another "subnetwork" or "access group". Links are not
limited to being provided by a single server trail. limited to being provided by a single server trail.
Management plane: performs management functions for the Transport Management plane: performs management functions for the Transport
Plane, the control plane and the system as a whole. It also provides Plane, the control plane and the system as a whole. It also provides
coordination between all the planes. The following management coordination between all the planes. The following management
functional areas are performed in the management plane: performance, functional areas are performed in the management plane: performance,
fault, configuration, accounting and security management fault, configuration, accounting and security management
Management domain: [See Recommendation G.805] A management domain Management domain: (see Recommendation G.805) a management domain
defines a collection of managed objects which are grouped to meet defines a collection of managed objects which are grouped to meet
organizational requirements according to geography, technology, organizational requirements according to geography, technology,
policy or other structure, and for a number of functional areas such policy or other structure, and for a number of functional areas such
as configuration, security, (FCAPS), for the purpose of providing as configuration, security, (FCAPS), for the purpose of providing
control in a consistent manner. Management domains can be disjoint, control in a consistent manner. Management domains can be disjoint,
contained or overlapping. As such the resources within an contained or overlapping. As such the resources within an
administrative domain can be distributed into several possible administrative domain can be distributed into several possible
overlapping management domains. The same resource can therefore overlapping management domains. The same resource can therefore
belong to several management domains simultaneously, but a belong to several management domains simultaneously, but a
management domain shall not cross the border of an administrative management domain shall not cross the border of an administrative
domain. domain.
W.Alanqar et al. - Expires October 2004 16 W.Alanqar et al. - Expires November 2004 16
SNP: The SNP is a control plane abstraction that represents an Subnetwork Point (SNP): The SNP is a control plane abstraction that
actual or potential transport plane resource. SNPs (in different represents an actual or potential transport plane resource. SNPs (in
subnetwork partitions) may represent the same transport resource. A different subnetwork partitions) may represent the same transport
one-to-one correspondence should not be assumed. resource. A one-to-one correspondence should not be assumed.
Subnetwork Point Pool (SNPP): A set of SNPs that are grouped
together for the purposes of routing.
Termination Connection Point (TCP): A TCP represents the output of a
Trail Termination function or the input to a Trail Termination Sink
function.
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 Recommendation.
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. Note: protocol controllers between a user and a control domain. Note:
there is no routing function associated with a UNI reference point. there is no routing function associated with a UNI reference point.
W.Alanqar et al. - Expires October 2004 17 W.Alanqar et al. - Expires November 2004 17
Appendix 2: ASON Routing Terminology Appendix 2: ASON Routing Terminology
This document makes use of the following terms: This document makes use of the following terms:
Routing Area (RA): a RA represents a partition of the data plane and Routing Area (RA): a RA represents a partition of the data plane and
its identifier is used within the control plane as the its identifier is used within the control plane as the
representation of this partition. Per [G.8080] a RA is defined by a representation of this partition. Per [G.8080] a RA is defined by a
set of sub-networks, the TE links that interconnect them, and the set of sub-networks, the links that interconnect them, and the
interfaces representing the ends of the TE links exiting that RA. A interfaces representing the ends of the links exiting that RA. A RA
RA may contain smaller RAs inter-connected by TE links. The limit of may contain smaller RAs inter-connected by links. The limit of
subdivision results in a RA that contains two sub-networks and a TE subdivision results in a RA that contains two sub-networks
link with a single component link. interconnected by a single link.
Routing Database (RDB): repository for the local topology, network Routing Database (RDB): repository for the local topology, network
topology, reachability, and other routing information that is topology, reachability, and other routing information that is
updated as part of the routing information exchange and may updated as part of the routing information exchange and may
additionally contain information that is configured. The RDB may additionally contain information that is configured. The RDB may
contain routing information for more than one Routing Area (RA). contain routing information for more than one Routing Area (RA).
Routing Components: ASON routing architecture functions. These Routing Components: ASON routing architecture functions. These
functions can be classified as protocol independent (Link Resource functions can be classified as protocol independent (Link Resource
Manager or LRM, Routing Controller or RC) and protocol specific Manager or LRM, Routing Controller or RC) and protocol specific
skipping to change at line 874 skipping to change at line 892
Link Resource Manager (LRM): supplies all the relevant component and Link Resource Manager (LRM): supplies all the relevant component and
TE link information to the RC. It informs the RC about any state TE link information to the RC. It informs the RC about any state
changes of the link resources it controls. changes of the link resources it controls.
Protocol Controller (PC): handles protocol specific message Protocol Controller (PC): handles protocol specific message
exchanges according to the reference point over which the exchanges according to the reference point over which the
information is exchanged (e.g. E-NNI, I-NNI), and internal exchanges information is exchanged (e.g. E-NNI, I-NNI), and internal exchanges
with the RC. The PC function is protocol dependent. with the RC. The PC function is protocol dependent.
W.Alanqar et al. - Expires October 2004 18 W.Alanqar et al. - Expires November 2004 18
Full Copyright Statement Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78 and to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to This document and the information contained herein are provided on
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.
W.Alanqar et al. - Expires October 2004 19 W.Alanqar et al. - Expires November 2004 19
 End of changes. 

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