CCAMP Working Group                             Wesam Alanqar (Sprint)
Internet Draft                                  Deborah Brungard (ATT)
Category: Informational                    David Meyer (Cisco Systems)
                                                    Lyndon Ong (Ciena)
Expiration Date: October November 2004         Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel)
                                             Jonathan Sadler (Tellabs)
                                                 Stephen Shew (Nortel)

                                                            April

                                                              May 2004

             Requirements for Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Routing
             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

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC-2026.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of
   six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
   documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts
   as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in
   progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

Abstract

   The Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) suite of protocols has been defined to
   control different switching technologies as well as different
   applications. These include support for requesting TDM connections
   including SONET/SDH and Optical Transport Networks (OTNs).

   This document concentrates on the routing requirements on the GMPLS
   suite of protocols to support the capabilities and functionalities
   for an Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON) as defined by
   ITU-T.

W.Alanqar et al. - Expires September November 2004                             1

Table of Contents

   Status of this Memo .............................................. 1
   Abstract ......................................................... 1
   1. Contributors .................................................. 2
   2. Conventions used in this document ............................. 2
   3. Introduction .................................................. 2
   4. ASON Routing Architecture and Requirements .................... 4
   4.1 Multiple Hierarchical Levels of ASON Routing Areas (RAs) ..... 5
   4.2 Hierarchical Routing Information Dissemination ............... 5
   4.3 Configuration ................................................ 7
   4.3.1 Configuring the Multi-Level Hierarchy ...................... 7
   4.3.2 Configuring RC Adjacencies ................................. 7
   4.4 Evolution .................................................... 7
   4.5 Routing Attributes ........................................... 8
   4.5.1 Taxonomy of Routing Attributes ............................. 8
   4.5.2 Commonly Advertised Information ............................ 9
   4.5.3 Node Attributes ............................................ 9
   4.5.4 Link Attributes ............................................ 9
   5. Security Considerations ...................................... 11
   6. Conclusions .................................................. 11
   7. Acknowledgements ............................................. 13
   8. Intellectual Property Considerations ......................... 13
   8.1 IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement .............................. 13 14
   9. References ................................................... 14
   9.1 Normative References ........................................ 14
   9.2 Informative References ...................................... 14
   10. Author's Addresses .......................................... 14
   Appendix 1: ASON Terminology .................................... 16
   Appendix 2: ASON Routing Terminology ............................ 18
   Full Copyright Statement ........................................ 19

1. Contributors

   This document is the result of the CCAMP Working Group ASON Routing
   Requirements design team joint effort.

2. Conventions used in this document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED",  "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in
   this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119
   [RFC2119].

3. Introduction

   The GMPLS suite of protocols provides among other capabilities
   support for controlling different switching technologies. These
   include support for requesting TDM connections utilizing SONET/SDH
   (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
   are needed to support the ITU-T G.8080 control plane architecture

W.Alanqar et al. - Expires November 2004                             2
   for Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON). Therefore, it is

W.Alanqar et al. - Expires October 2004                              2
   desirable to understand the corresponding requirements for the GMPLS
   protocol suite. The ASON control plane architecture is defined in
   [G.8080], ASON routing requirements are identified in [G.7715], and
   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
   protocol neutral functional requirements and architecture.

   This document focuses on the routing requirements for the GMPLS
   suite of protocols to support the capabilities and functionality of
   ASON control planes. This document summarizes the ASON requirements
   using ASON terminology. This document does not address GMPLS
   applicability or GMPLS capabilities. Any protocol (in particular,
   routing) applicability, design or suggested extensions is strictly
   outside the scope of this document. ASON (Routing) terminology
   sections are provided in Appendix 1 and 2.

   The ASON routing architecture is based on the following assumptions:
   - A network is subdivided based on operator decision and criteria
     (e.g. geography, administration, and/or technology), the network
     subdivisions are defined in ASON as Routing Areas (RAs).
   - The routing architecture and protocols applied after the network
     is subdivided is an operator's choice. A multi-level hierarchy of
     RAs, as defined in ITU-T [G.7715] and [G.7715.1], provides for a
     hierarchical relationship of RAs based on containment, i.e. child
     RAs are always contained within a parent RA. The hierarchical
     containment relationship of RAs provides for routing information
     abstraction, thereby enabling scalable routing information
     representation. The maximum number of hierarchical RA levels to be
     supported is NOT specified (outside the scope).
   - Within an ASON RA and for each level of the routing hierarchy,
     multiple routing paradigms (hierarchical, step- by-step, source-
     based), centralized or distributed path computation, and multiple
     different routing protocols MAY be supported. The architecture
     does NOT assume a one-to-one correspondence of a routing protocol
     and a RA level and allows the routing protocol(s) used within
     different RAs (including child and parent RAs) to be different.
     The realization of the routing paradigm(s) to support the
     hierarchical levels of RAs is NOT specified.
   - The routing adjacency topology (i.e. the associated Protocol
     Controller (PC) connectivity) and transport topology is NOT
     assumed to be congruent.
   - The requirements support architectural evolution, e.g. a change in
     the number of RA levels, as well as aggregation and segmentation
     of RAs.

   The description of the ASON routing architecture provides for a
   conceptual reference architecture, with definition of functional
   components and common information elements to enable end-to-end
   routing in the case of protocol heterogeneity and facilitate
   management of ASON networks. This description is only conceptual: no
   physical partitioning of these functions is implied.

W.Alanqar et al. - Expires October November 2004                             3

4. ASON Routing Architecture and Requirements

   The fundamental architectural concept is the RA and it's related
   functional components (see Appendix 2 on terminology). The routing
   services offered by a RA are provided by a Routing Performer (RP).
   An A
   RP is responsible for a single RA, and it MAY be functionally
   realized using distributed Routing Controllers (RC). The RC, itself,
   MAY be implemented as a cluster of distributed entities (ASON refers
   to the cluster as a Routing Control Domain (RCD)). The RC components
   for a RA receive routing topology information from their associated
   Link Resource Manager(s) (LRMs) and store this information in the
   Routing Information Database (RDB). The RDB is replicated at each RC
   bounded to the same Routing Area (RA), RA, and MAY contain information about multiple
   transport plane network layers. Whenever the routing topology
   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. Path computation
   functions MAY exist in each RC, MAY exist on selected RCs within the
   same RA, or MAY be centralized for the RA.

   In this context, communication between RCs within the same RA is
   realized using a particular routing protocol (or multiple
   protocols). In ASON, the communication component is represented by
   the protocol controller (PC) component(s) and the protocol messages
   are conveyed over the ASON control plane's Signaling Control Network
   (SCN). The PC MAY convey information for one or more transport
   network layers (refer to Section 4.2 Note). The RC is protocol
   independent and RC communications MAY be realized by multiple,
   different PCs within a RA.

   The ASON routing architecture defines a multi-level routing
   hierarchy of RAs based on a containment model to support routing
   information abstraction. [G.7715.1] defines the ASON hierarchical
   link state routing protocol requirements for communication of
   routing information within an RA (one level) to support hierarchical
   routing information dissemination (including summarized routing
   information for other levels). The Communication communication between any of the
   other functional component(s) (e.g. SCN, LRM, and between RCDs (RC-
   RC communication between RAs)), is outside the scope of [G.7715.1]
   protocol requirements and, thus, is also outside the scope of this
   document.

   ASON Routing components are identified by identifiers that are drawn
   from different name spaces (see [G.7715.1]). These are control plane
   identifiers for transport resources, components, and SCN addresses.
   The formats of those identifiers in a routing protocol realization
   SHALL be implementation specific and outside the scope of this
   document.

   The failure of a RC, or the failure of communications between RCs,
   and the subsequent recover recovery from the failure condition MUST NOT

W.Alanqar et al. - Expires October 2004                              4
   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
   unavailable during recovery actions.

4.1 Multiple Hierarchical Levels of ASON Routing Areas (RAs)

   [G.8080] introduces the concept of Routing Area (RA) in reference to
   a network subdivision. RAs provide for routing information
   abstraction. Except for the single RA case, RAs are 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 RA levels.

   However, the RA containment relationship describes only an
   architectural hierarchical organization of RAs. It does not restrict
   a specific routing protocol's realization (e.g. OSPF multi-areas,
   path computation, etc.). Moreover, the realization of the routing
   paradigm to support a hierarchical organization of RAs and the
   number of hierarchical RA levels to be supported is routing protocol
   specific and outside the scope of this document.

   In a multi-level hierarchy of RAs, it is necessary to distinguish
   among RCs for the different levels of the RA hierarchy. Before any
   pair of RCs establishes communication, they MUST verify they are
   bounded
   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
   communicate. To distinguish between RCs bounded bound to the same RA, an RC
   identifier (RC ID) is required; the RC ID MUST be unique within its
   containing RA.

   A RA represents a partition of the data plane plane, and its identifier
   (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 a carrier's network. network SHALL be
   uniquely identifiable. 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

   Routing information can be exchanged between RCs bounded bound to adjacent
   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
   MAY be viewed as external links (inter-RA links), and the links
   representing connectivity within a RA MAY be viewed as internal
   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
   of a child RA MAY be hidden from the parent RA's view.

   The physical location of RCs for adjacent RA levels, their
   relationship and their communication protocol(s) are outside the
   scope of this document. No assumption is made regarding how RCs
   communicate between adjacent RA levels. If routing information is

W.Alanqar et al. - Expires October November 2004                             5
   exchanged between a RC, its parent, and its child RCs, it SHOULD
   include reachability and MAY include (upon policy decision) node and
   link topology. Only the Communication between RAs only takes place between
   RCs of the parent RA communicate, with a parent/child relationship. RCs of one
   childĘs RA never
   communicate with the RCs of other child RAs. another RA at the same level. There SHOULD
   not be any dependencies on the different routing protocols used
   within a RA or in different RAs.

   Multiple RCs bounded bound to the same 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.

   Note: there is no implied relationship between multi-layer transport
   networks and multi-level routing. Implementations may support a
   hierarchical routing topology (multi-level) with a single routing
   protocol instance for multiple transport switching layers or a
   hierarchical routing topology for one transport switching layer.

   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 exchanges 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) bounded to a
        RA at Level N to develop paths to reachable endpoints outside
        of the RA.

   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 method to:

      - prevent information propagated from a Level N+1 RA's RC into
        the Level N RA's RC to be from being re-introduced into the Level N+1
        RA's RC, and

      - prevent information propagated from a Level N-1 RA's RC into

W.Alanqar et al. - Expires November 2004                             6
        the Level N RA's RC to be from being re-introduced into the Level N-1
        RA's

W.Alanqar et al. - Expires October 2004                              6 RC.

      The routing protocol SHALL differentiate the routing information
      originated at a given level RA from derived routing information
      (received from external RAs), even when this information is
      forwarded by another RC at the same level. This is a necessary
      condition to be fulfilled by routing protocols to be loop free.

   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.

4.3 Configuration

4.3.1 Configuring the Multi-Level Hierarchy

   The RC MUST support static (i.e. operator assisted) and MAY support
   automated configuration of the information describing its
   relationship to its parent and its child within the hierarchical
   structure (including RA ID and RC ID). When applied recursively, the
   whole hierarchy is thus configured.

4.3.2 Configuring RC Adjacencies

   The RC MUST support static (i.e. operator assisted) and MAY support
   automated configuration of the information describing its associated
   PC
   adjacencies to other RCs bounded to the same parent within a RA. The routing protocol SHOULD
   support all the types of RC adjacencies described in Section 9 of
   [G.7715]. The latter includes congruent topology (with distributed
   RC) and hubbed topology (e.g. note that the latter does not
   automatically imply designated RC).

4.4 Evolution

   The containment relationships of RAs MAY change, motivated by events
   such as mergers, acquisitions, and divestitures.

W.Alanqar et al. - Expires November 2004                             7
   The routing protocol SHOULD be capable of supporting architectural
   evolution in terms of number of hierarchical levels of RAs, as well

W.Alanqar et al. - Expires October 2004                              7
   as aggregation and segmentation of RAs. RA IDs ID uniqueness within an
   administrative domain MAY facilitate these operations. The routing
   protocol is not expected to automatically initiate and/or execute
   these operations. Reconfiguration of the RA hierarchy MAY not
   disrupt calls in progress, though calls being set up may fail to
   complete, and the call setup service may be unavailable during
   reconfiguration actions.

4.5 Routing Attributes

   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 equipment support supports the same set of transport layers
   or 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 Taxonomy of Routing Attributes

   Attributes can be organized according to the following categories:

   - Node related or link related

   - 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 MAY be statically or automatically
   configured for each transport network layer. This may lead to
   unnecessary repetition. Hence, the inheritance property of
   attributes MAY also be used to optimize the configuration process.

   ASON uses the term, SNP, SubNetwork Point (SNP), for the control plane
   representation of a transport plane resource. The control plane
   representation and transport plane topology is NOT assumed to be
   congruent, the control plane representation SHALL not be restricted
   by the physical topology. The relational grouping of SNPs for
   routing is termed a
   SNPP. SNP Pool (SNPP). The routing function
   understands topology in terms of SNPP links. Grouping MAY be based
   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
   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
   containing RA, or when smaller groupings are required.

W.Alanqar et al. - Expires October 2004                              8

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 the RA to 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 different level RA.

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. In the
   following tables, Capability refers to the level of support required
   in the realization of a link state routing protocol, whereas Usage
   refers to the degree of operational and implementation flexibility.

   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 external (e.g. UNI) address/address prefixes or a set of
   associated SNPP link IDs/SNPP ID prefixes, the selection of which
   MUST be consistent within the applicable scope. These are control
   plane identifiers, the formats of these identifiers in a protocol
   realization is implementation specific and outside the scope of this
   document.

   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. Hence the attributes of a node are not be
   considered only as single switch attributes but MAY apply to a node
   at a higher level of the hierarchy that represents a sub-network.

4.5.4 Link Attributes

   The following Link Attributes are defined:

W.Alanqar et al. - Expires November 2004                             9
       Link Attribute                   Capability      Usage
       ---------------                  -----------     ---------
       Local SNPP link ID               REQUIRED        REQUIRED

W.Alanqar et al. - Expires October 2004                              9
       Remote SNPP link ID              REQUIRED        REQUIRED
       Layer Specific Characteristics   see Table 3

                         Table 2. Link Attributes

   The SNPP link ID name MUST be sufficient to uniquely identify the
   corresponding transport plane resource taking into account
   separation of data and control planes (see Section 4.5.1, the
   control plane representation and transport plane topology is not
   assumed to be congruent). The SNPP link ID format is routing
   protocol specific.

   Note: when the remote end of a SNPP link is located outside of the
   RA, the remote SNPP link ID is OPTIONAL.

   The following 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 attribute identifies whether the local SNP
     represents a TCP, CP, 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
     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 TCP associated with the Local SNPP.
     This is only applicable when the local SNP represents a TCP or can
     be flexibly configured as a TCP.

        Link Characteristics            Capability      Usage
        -----------------------         ----------      ---------
        Signal Type                     REQUIRED        OPTIONAL

W.Alanqar et al. - Expires November 2004                            10
        Link Weight                     REQUIRED        OPTIONAL
        Resource Class                  REQUIRED        OPTIONAL
        Local Connection Types          REQUIRED        OPTIONAL
        Link Capacity                   REQUIRED        OPTIONAL

W.Alanqar et al. - Expires October 2004                             10
        Link Availability               OPTIONAL        OPTIONAL
        Diversity Support               OPTIONAL        OPTIONAL
        Local Adaptation support        OPTIONAL        OPTIONAL

                       Table 3. Link Characteristics

   Note: separate advertisements of layer specific attributes MAY be
   chosen. However However, this may lead to unnecessary duplication. This can
   be avoided using the inheritance property, so that the attributes
   derivable from the local adaptation information do not need to be
   advertised. Thus, an optimization MAY be used when several layers
   are present by indicating when an attribute is inheritable from a
   server layer.

5. Security Considerations

   ASON routing protocol MUST deliver the operational security
   objectives where required. These objectives do not necessarily imply
   requirements on the routing protocol itself, and MAY be met by other
   established means.

6. Conclusions

   The description of the ASON routing architecture and components is
   provided in terms of routing functionality. This description is only
   conceptual: no physical partitioning of these functions is implied.

   In summary, the ASON routing architecture assumes:
   - A network is subdivided into ASON RAs, which MAY support multiple
     routing protocols, no one-to-one relationship SHALL be assumed assumes.
   - Routing Controllers (RC) provide for the exchange of routing
     information (primitives) for the RA. The RC is protocol
     independent and MAY be realized by multiple, different protocol
     controllers within a RA. The routing information exchanged between
     RCs SHALL be subject to policy constraints imposed at reference
     points (External- and Internal-NNI) Internal-NNI).
   - A In a multi-level RA hierarchy based on containment, only the communication
     between RCs of different RAs only happens when there is a parent/
     child relationship between the parent RA communicate. RAs. RCs of child RAs never
     communicate with the RCs of other child RAs. There SHOULD not be
     any dependencies on the different routing protocols used within a
     child RA and that of its parent. The routing information exchanged
     within the parent RA SHALL be independent of both the routing
     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
     (control) domain. The routing information exchanged between
     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
     control distribution choice(s), e.g. centralized, fully
     distributed. RCs bounded to different RA levels MAY be co-located
     within the same physical element or physically distributed.
   - 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
     NOT be assumed to be congruent congruent.
   - The routing topology SHALL support multiple links between nodes
     and RAs RAs.

   In summary, the following functionality is expected from GMPLS
   routing to instantiate the ASON hierarchical routing architecture
   realization (see [G.7715] and [G.7715.1]):
   - RAs SHALL be uniquely identifiable within a carrier's network,
     each having a unique RA ID within the carrier's network.
   - Within a RA (one level), the routing protocol SHALL support
     dissemination of hierarchical routing information (including
     summarized routing information for other levels) in support of an
     architecture of multiple hierarchical levels of RAs; the number of
     hierarchical RA levels to be supported by a routing protocol is
     implementation specific.
   - The routing protocol SHALL support routing information based on a
     common set of information elements as defined in [G.7715] and
     [G.7715.1], divided between attributes pertaining to links and
     abstract nodes (each 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.
   - The routing protocol SHALL converge such that the distributed RDBs
     become synchronized after a period of time.

   To support hierarchical routing information dissemination within an
   RA, the routing protocol MUST deliver:
   - processing Processing of routing information exchanged between adjacent
     levels of the hierarchy (i.e. Level N+1 and N) including
     reachability and upon policy decision summarized topology
     information
     information.
   - when multiple RCs bound to a RA transform Self-consistent information at the receiving level resulting from
     any transformation (filter, summarize, etc.) and then forward forwarding of
     information from one RC to RC(s) at different levels
     that the resulting information at the receiving level is self-
     consistent
   - when multiple
     RCs bound to a single RA.
   - 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
     which this information has been initially received.

   In order to support operator assisted changes in the containment
   relationships of RAs, the routing protocol SHALL support evolution
   in terms of number of hierarchical levels of RAs. Example: For example:
   support of non-disruptive operations such as adding and removing RAs
   at the top/bottom of the hierarchy, adding or removing a
   hierarchical level of RAs in or from the middle of the hierarchy, as
   well as aggregation and segmentation of RAs. The number of

W.Alanqar et al. - Expires November 2004                            12
   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
   reachable by a node may be advertised either as a set of UNI
   Transport Resource addresses/ address prefixes, or a set of
   associated SNPP link IDs/SNPP link ID prefixes, assigned and
   selected consistently in their applicability scope. The formats of
   the control plane identifiers in a protocol realization are
   implementation specific. Use of a routing protocol within a RA
   should not restrict the choice of routing protocols for use in other
   RAs (child or parent).

   As ASON does not restrict the control plane architecture choice
   used, either a co-located architecture or a physically separated
   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
   network as a single logical entity with only its external links
   visible to the topology database.

7. Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Kireeti Kompella for having
   initiated the proposal of an ASON Routing Requirement Design Team. Team
   and the ITU-T SG15/Q14 for their careful review and input.

8. Intellectual Property Considerations

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights 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; nor does it
   represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any
   such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights
   in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat 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 implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository
   at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention
   any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other
   proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required
   to implement this standard. Please address the information to the
   IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.

W.Alanqar et al. - Expires November 2004                            13

8.1 IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
   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
   with RFC 3668.

W.Alanqar et al. - Expires October 2004                             13 [RFC3668].

9. References

9.1 Normative References

   [RFC2026]    S.Bradner, "The Internet Standards Process --
                Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

   [RFC2119]    S.Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
                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
                Requirements for the Automatically Switched Optical
                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
                Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON),"
                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

   Wesam Alanqar (Sprint)
   EMail: wesam.alanqar@mail.sprint.com

   Deborah Brungard (AT&T)
   Rm. D1-3C22 - 200 S. Laurel Ave.
   Middletown, NJ 07748, USA
   Phone: +1 732 4201573
   EMail: dbrungard@att.com

   David Meyer (Cisco Systems)
   EMail: dmm@1-4-5.net

   Lyndon Ong (Ciena Corporation)

W.Alanqar et al. - Expires November 2004                            14
   5965 Silver Creek Valley Rd,
   San Jose, CA 95128, USA
   Phone: +1 408 8347894
   EMail: lyong@ciena.com

   Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel)
   Francis Wellensplein 1,
   B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
   Phone: +32 3 2408491
   EMail: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be

W.Alanqar et al. - Expires October 2004                             14

   Jonathan Sadler
   1415 W. Diehl Rd
   Naperville, IL 60563
   EMail: jonathan.sadler@tellabs.com

   Stephen Shew (Nortel Networks)
   PO Box 3511 Station C
   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA K1Y 4H7
   Phone: +1 613 7632462
   EMail: sdshew@nortelnetworks.com

W.Alanqar et al. - Expires October November 2004                            15

Appendix 1: ASON Terminology

   This document makes use of the following terms:

   Administrative domain: (Recommendation G.805 For (see Recommendation G.805) for the purposes
   of [G7715.1] an administrative domain represents the extent of
   resources which belong to a single player such as a network
   operator, a service provider, or an end-user. Administrative domains
   of different players do not overlap amongst themselves.

   Control plane: performs the call control and connection control
   functions. Through signaling, the control plane sets up and releases
   connections, and may restore a connection in case of a failure.

   (Control) Domain: represents a collection of (control) entities that
   are grouped for a particular purpose. The control plane is
   subdivided into domains matching administrative domains. Within an
   administrative domain, further subdivisions of the control plane are
   recursively applied. A routing control domain is an abstract entity
   that hides the details of the RC distribution.

   External NNI (E-NNI): interfaces are located between protocol
   controllers between control domains.

   Internal NNI (I-NNI): interfaces are located between protocol
   controllers within control domains.

   Link: [See (see Recommendation G.805] G.805) a "topological component" which
   describes a fixed relationship between a "subnetwork" or "access
   group" and another "subnetwork" or "access group". Links are not
   limited to being provided by a single server trail.

   Management plane: performs management functions for the Transport
   Plane, the control plane and the system as a whole. It also provides
   coordination between all the planes. The following management
   functional areas are performed in the management plane: performance,
   fault, configuration, accounting and security management

   Management domain: [See (see Recommendation G.805] A G.805) a management domain
   defines a collection of managed objects which are grouped to meet
   organizational requirements according to geography, technology,
   policy or other structure, and for a number of functional areas such
   as configuration, security, (FCAPS), for the purpose of providing
   control in a consistent manner. Management domains can be disjoint,
   contained or overlapping. As such the resources within an
   administrative domain can be distributed into several possible
   overlapping management domains. The same resource can therefore
   belong to several management domains simultaneously, but a
   management domain shall not cross the border of an administrative
   domain.

W.Alanqar et al. - Expires October November 2004                            16
   SNP:
   Subnetwork Point (SNP): The SNP is a control plane abstraction that
   represents an actual or potential transport plane resource. SNPs (in
   different subnetwork partitions) may represent the same transport
   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
   of user information, from one location to another. It can also
   provide transfer of some control and network management information.
   The Transport Plane is layered; it is equivalent to the Transport
   Network defined in G.805. G.805 Recommendation.

   User Network Interface (UNI): interfaces are located between
   protocol controllers between a user and a control domain. Note:
   there is no routing function associated with a UNI reference point.

W.Alanqar et al. - Expires October November 2004                            17

Appendix 2: ASON Routing Terminology

   This document makes use of the following terms:

   Routing Area (RA): a RA represents a partition of the data plane and
   its identifier is used within the control plane as the
   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
   interfaces representing the ends of the TE links exiting that RA. A RA
   may contain smaller RAs inter-connected by TE links. The limit of
   subdivision results in a RA that contains two sub-networks and a TE
   link with
   interconnected by a single component link.

   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 possibly to 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.

W.Alanqar et al. - Expires October November 2004                            18

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject
   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78 78, and
   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph
   are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   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 are provided on
   an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
   REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE
   INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS DISCLAIM 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 November 2004                            19