draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-analysis-04.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-analysis-05.txt 
Network Working Group CCAMP GMPLS P&R Design Team Network Working Group CCAMP GMPLS P&R Design Team
Internet Draft Internet Draft
Category: Informational Dimitri Papadimitriou (Editor) Category: Informational Dimitri Papadimitriou (Editor)
Expiration Date: March 2005 Eric Mannie (Editor) Expiration Date: October 2005 Eric Mannie (Editor)
October 2004 April 2005
Analysis of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)-based Analysis of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)-based
Recovery Mechanisms (including Protection and Restoration) Recovery Mechanisms (including Protection and Restoration)
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-analysis-04.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-analysis-05.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
of section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each of section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each
author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of
which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of
which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
RFC 3668. RFC 3668.
skipping to change at line 41 skipping to change at line 41
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract Abstract
This document provides an analysis grid to evaluate, compare and This document provides an analysis grid to evaluate, compare and
contrast the Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) contrast the Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
protocol suite capabilities with respect to the recovery mechanisms protocol suite capabilities with respect to the recovery mechanisms
currently proposed at the IETF CCAMP Working Group. A detailed currently proposed at the IETF CCAMP Working Group. A detailed
analysis of each of the recovery phases is provided using the analysis of each of the recovery phases is provided using the
terminology defined in a companion document. This document focuses terminology defined in a companion document. This document focuses
on transport plane survivability and recovery issues and not on on transport plane survivability and recovery issues and not on
control plane resilience and related aspects. control plane resilience and related aspects.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires March 2005 1 D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires October 2005 1
Table of Content Table of Content
Status of this Memo .............................................. 1 Status of this Memo .............................................. 1
Abstract ......................................................... 1 Abstract ......................................................... 1
Table of Content ................................................. 2 Table of Content ................................................. 2
1. Contributors .................................................. 3 1. Contributors .................................................. 3
2. Conventions used in this Document ............................. 3 2. Conventions used in this Document ............................. 4
3. Introduction .................................................. 4 3. Introduction .................................................. 4
4. Fault Management .............................................. 4 4. Fault Management .............................................. 5
4.1 Failure Detection ............................................ 4 4.1 Failure Detection ............................................ 5
4.2 Failure Localization and Isolation ........................... 7 4.2 Failure Localization and Isolation ........................... 7
4.3 Failure Notification ......................................... 7 4.3 Failure Notification ......................................... 8
4.4 Failure Correlation .......................................... 9 4.4 Failure Correlation ......................................... 10
5. Recovery Mechanisms .......................................... 10 5. Recovery Mechanisms .......................................... 10
5.1 Transport vs. Control Plane Responsibilities ................ 10 5.1 Transport vs. Control Plane Responsibilities ................ 10
5.2 Technology In/dependent Mechanisms .......................... 11 5.2 Technology In/dependent Mechanisms .......................... 11
5.2.1 OTN Recovery .............................................. 11 5.2.1 OTN Recovery .............................................. 11
5.2.2 Pre-OTN Recovery .......................................... 11 5.2.2 Pre-OTN Recovery .......................................... 11
5.2.3 SONET/SDH Recovery ........................................ 11 5.2.3 SONET/SDH Recovery ........................................ 12
5.3 Specific Aspects of Control Plane-based Recovery Mechanisms . 12 5.3 Specific Aspects of Control Plane-based Recovery Mechanisms . 12
5.3.1 In-band vs. Out-of-band Signaling ......................... 12 5.3.1 In-band vs. Out-of-band Signaling ......................... 12
5.3.2 Uni- vs. Bi-directional Failures .......................... 13 5.3.2 Uni- vs. Bi-directional Failures .......................... 13
5.3.3 Partial vs. Full Span Recovery ............................ 15 5.3.3 Partial vs. Full Span Recovery ............................ 15
5.3.4 Difference between LSP, LSP Segment and Span Recovery ..... 15 5.3.4 Difference between LSP, LSP Segment and Span Recovery ..... 16
5.4 Difference between Recovery Type and Scheme ................. 16 5.4 Difference between Recovery Type and Scheme ................. 16
5.5 LSP Recovery Mechanisms ..................................... 18 5.5 LSP Recovery Mechanisms ..................................... 18
5.5.1 Classification ............................................ 18 5.5.1 Classification ............................................ 18
5.5.2 LSP Restoration ........................................... 19 5.5.2 LSP Restoration ........................................... 20
5.5.3 Pre-planned LSP Restoration ............................... 21 5.5.3 Pre-planned LSP Restoration ............................... 21
5.5.4 LSP Segment Restoration ................................... 22 5.5.4 LSP Segment Restoration ................................... 22
6. Reversion .................................................... 22 6. Reversion .................................................... 23
6.1 Wait-To-Restore (WTR) ....................................... 22 6.1 Wait-To-Restore (WTR) ....................................... 23
6.2 Revertive Mode Operation .................................... 23 6.2 Revertive Mode Operation .................................... 23
6.3 Orphans ..................................................... 23 6.3 Orphans ..................................................... 24
7. Hierarchies .................................................. 24 7. Hierarchies .................................................. 24
7.1 Horizontal Hierarchy (Partitions) ........................... 24 7.1 Horizontal Hierarchy (Partitions) ........................... 25
7.2 Vertical Hierarchy (Layers) ................................. 25 7.2 Vertical Hierarchy (Layers) ................................. 25
7.2.1 Recovery Granularity ...................................... 26 7.2.1 Recovery Granularity ...................................... 27
7.3 Escalation Strategies ....................................... 26 7.3 Escalation Strategies ....................................... 27
7.4 Disjointness ................................................ 27 7.4 Disjointness ................................................ 28
7.4.1 SRLG Disjointness ......................................... 27 7.4.1 SRLG Disjointness ......................................... 28
8. Recovery Mechanisms Analysis ................................. 28 8. Recovery Mechanisms Analysis ................................. 29
8.1 Fast Convergence (Detection/Correlation and Hold-off Time) .. 29 8.1 Fast Convergence (Detection/Correlation and Hold-off Time) .. 30
8.2 Efficiency (Recovery Switching Time) ........................ 29 8.2 Efficiency (Recovery Switching Time) ........................ 30
8.3 Robustness .................................................. 30 8.3 Robustness .................................................. 31
8.4 Resource Optimization ....................................... 31 8.4 Resource Optimization ....................................... 31
8.4.1 Recovery Resource Sharing ................................. 32 8.4.1 Recovery Resource Sharing ................................. 32
8.4.2 Recovery Resource Sharing and SRLG Recovery ............... 34 8.4.2 Recovery Resource Sharing and SRLG Recovery ............... 34
8.4.3 Recovery Resource Sharing, SRLG Disjointness and Admission. 35 8.4.3 Recovery Resource Sharing, SRLG Disjointness and Admission. 35
9. Summary and Conclusions ...................................... 36 9. Summary and Conclusions ...................................... 36
10. Security Considerations ..................................... 37 10. Security Considerations ..................................... 38
11. Acknowledgments ............................................. 38 11. IANA Considerations ......................................... 38
12. References .................................................. 38 12. Acknowledgments ............................................. 38
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires March 2005 2 D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires October 2005 2
12.1 Normative References ....................................... 38 13. References .................................................. 39
12.2 Informative References ..................................... 39 13.1 Normative References ....................................... 39
13. Editor's Address ............................................ 41 13.2 Informative References ..................................... 40
14. Editor's Address ............................................ 41
Intellectual Property Statement ................................. 42 Intellectual Property Statement ................................. 42
Disclaimer of Validity .......................................... 42 Disclaimer of Validity .......................................... 42
Copyright Statement ............................................. 42 Copyright Statement ............................................. 42
1. Contributors 1. Contributors
This document is the result of the CCAMP Working Group Protection This document is the result of the CCAMP Working Group Protection
and Restoration design team joint effort. Besides the editors, the and Restoration design team joint effort. Besides the editors, the
following are the authors that contributed to the present memo: following are the authors that contributed to the present memo:
Deborah Brungard (AT&T) Deborah Brungard (AT&T)
200 S. Laurel Ave. 200 S. Laurel Ave.
Middletown, NJ 07748, USA Middletown, NJ 07748, USA
E-mail: dbrungard@att.com EMail: dbrungard@att.com
Sudheer Dharanikota Sudheer Dharanikota
EMail: sudheer@ieee.org EMail: sudheer@ieee.org
Jonathan P. Lang (Rincon Networks) Jonathan P. Lang (Sonos)
506 Chapala Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101, USA
EMail: jplang@ieee.org EMail: jplang@ieee.org
Guangzhi Li (AT&T) Guangzhi Li (AT&T)
180 Park Avenue, 180 Park Avenue,
Florham Park, NJ 07932, USA Florham Park, NJ 07932, USA
E-mail: gli@research.att.com EMail: gli@research.att.com
Eric Mannie Eric Mannie
EMail: eric_mannie@hotmail.com EMail: eric_mannie@hotmail.com
Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel) Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel)
Francis Wellesplein, 1 Francis Wellesplein, 1
B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
EMail: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be EMail: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be
Bala Rajagopalan Bala Rajagopalan (Intel Broadband Wireless Division)
EMail: braj@earthlink.net 2111 NE 25th Ave.
Hillsboro, OR 97124, USA
EMail: bala.rajagopalan@intel.com
Yakov Rekhter (Juniper) Yakov Rekhter (Juniper)
1194 N. Mathilda Avenue 1194 N. Mathilda Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94089, USA Sunnyvale, CA 94089, USA
EMail: yakov@juniper.net EMail: yakov@juniper.net
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires October 2005 3
2. Conventions used in this document 2. Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in
this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Any other recovery-related terminology used in this document Any other recovery-related terminology used in this document
conforms to the one defined in [TERM]. The reader is also assumed to conforms to the one defined in [TERM]. The reader is also assumed to
be familiar with the terminology developed in [RFC3945], [RFC3471],
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires March 2005 3 [RFC3473], [GMPLS-RTG] and [LMP].
be familiar with the terminology developed in [GMPLS-ARCH],
[RFC3471], [RFC3473], [GMPLS-RTG] and [LMP].
3. Introduction 3. Introduction
This document provides an analysis grid to evaluate, compare and This document provides an analysis grid to evaluate, compare and
contrast the Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) protocol suite capabilities contrast the Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) protocol suite capabilities
with respect to the recovery mechanisms proposed at the IETF CCAMP with respect to the recovery mechanisms proposed at the IETF CCAMP
Working Group. The focus is on transport plane survivability and Working Group. The focus is on transport plane survivability and
recovery issues and not on control plane resilience related aspects. recovery issues and not on control plane resilience related aspects.
Although the recovery mechanisms described in this document impose Although the recovery mechanisms described in this document impose
different requirements on GMPLS-based recovery protocols, the different requirements on GMPLS-based recovery protocols, the
skipping to change at line 211 skipping to change at line 216
protection and restoration mechanisms. Specific terms such as protection and restoration mechanisms. Specific terms such as
protection and restoration are only used when differentiation is protection and restoration are only used when differentiation is
required. Likewise the term "failure" is used to represent both required. Likewise the term "failure" is used to represent both
signal failure and signal degradation. signal failure and signal degradation.
In addition, a clear distinction is made between partitioning In addition, a clear distinction is made between partitioning
(horizontal hierarchy) and layering (vertical hierarchy) when (horizontal hierarchy) and layering (vertical hierarchy) when
analyzing the different hierarchical recovery mechanisms including analyzing the different hierarchical recovery mechanisms including
disjointness related issues. The dimensions from which each of the disjointness related issues. The dimensions from which each of the
recovery mechanisms detailed in this document can be analyzed are recovery mechanisms detailed in this document can be analyzed are
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires October 2005 4
introduced to assess the current GMPLS protocol capabilities and the introduced to assess the current GMPLS protocol capabilities and the
potential need for further extensions. This document concludes by potential need for further extensions. This document concludes by
detailing the applicability of the current GMPLS protocol building detailing the applicability of the current GMPLS protocol building
blocks for recovery purposes. blocks for recovery purposes.
4. Fault Management 4. Fault Management
4.1 Failure Detection 4.1 Failure Detection
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires March 2005 4
Transport failure detection is the only phase that can not be Transport failure detection is the only phase that can not be
achieved by the control plane alone since the latter needs a hook to achieved by the control plane alone since the latter needs a hook to
the transport plane to collect the related information. It has to be the transport plane to collect the related information. It has to be
emphasized that even if failure events themselves are detected by emphasized that even if failure events themselves are detected by
the transport plane, the latter, upon a failure condition, must the transport plane, the latter, upon a failure condition, must
trigger the control plane for subsequent actions through the use of trigger the control plane for subsequent actions through the use of
GMPLS signalling capabilities (see [RFC3471] and [RFC3473]) or Link GMPLS signalling capabilities (see [RFC3471] and [RFC3473]) or Link
Management Protocol capabilities (see [LMP], Section 6). Management Protocol capabilities (see [LMP], Section 6).
Therefore, by definition, transport failure detection is transport Therefore, by definition, transport failure detection is transport
skipping to change at line 265 skipping to change at line 271
- Alignment: checks that the client and server layer frame start can - Alignment: checks that the client and server layer frame start can
be correctly recovered from the detection of loss of alignment. be correctly recovered from the detection of loss of alignment.
The specific processes depend on the signal/frame structure and The specific processes depend on the signal/frame structure and
may include: (multi-)frame alignment, pointer processing and may include: (multi-)frame alignment, pointer processing and
alignment of several independent frames to a common frame start in alignment of several independent frames to a common frame start in
case of inverse multiplexing. Loss of alignment is a generic term. case of inverse multiplexing. Loss of alignment is a generic term.
Examples are loss of frame, loss of multi-frame, or loss of Examples are loss of frame, loss of multi-frame, or loss of
pointer. pointer.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires October 2005 5
- Payload type: checks that compatible adaptation functions are used - Payload type: checks that compatible adaptation functions are used
at the source and the destination. This is normally done by adding at the source and the destination. This is normally done by adding
a payload type identifier (referred to as the "signal label") at a payload type identifier (referred to as the "signal label") at
the source adaptation function and comparing it with the expected the source adaptation function and comparing it with the expected
identifier at the destination. For instance, the payload type identifier at the destination. For instance, the payload type
identifier and the corresponding mismatch detection. identifier and the corresponding mismatch detection.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires March 2005 5
- Signal Quality: monitors the performance of a signal. For - Signal Quality: monitors the performance of a signal. For
instance, if the performance falls below a certain threshold a instance, if the performance falls below a certain threshold a
defect - excessive errors (EXC) or degraded signal (DEG) - is defect - excessive errors (EXC) or degraded signal (DEG) - is
detected. detected.
The most important point is that the supervision processes and the The most important point is that the supervision processes and the
corresponding failure detection (used to initiate the recovery corresponding failure detection (used to initiate the recovery
phase(s)) result in either: phase(s)) result in either:
- Signal Degrade (SD): A signal indicating that the associated data - Signal Degrade (SD): A signal indicating that the associated data
skipping to change at line 318 skipping to change at line 324
and failure condition reported to the PXC control plane. This can be and failure condition reported to the PXC control plane. This can be
provided by using [LMP-WDM] extensions that delivers IP message- provided by using [LMP-WDM] extensions that delivers IP message-
based communication between the PXC and the OLS control plane. Also, based communication between the PXC and the OLS control plane. Also,
since PXCs are independent of the framing format, failure conditions since PXCs are independent of the framing format, failure conditions
can only be triggered either by detecting the absence of the optical can only be triggered either by detecting the absence of the optical
signal or by measuring its quality. These mechanisms are generally signal or by measuring its quality. These mechanisms are generally
less reliable than electrical (digital) ones. Both types of less reliable than electrical (digital) ones. Both types of
detection mechanisms are outside the scope of this document. If the detection mechanisms are outside the scope of this document. If the
intermediate OLS supports electrical (digital) mechanisms, using the intermediate OLS supports electrical (digital) mechanisms, using the
LMP communication channel, these failure conditions are reported to LMP communication channel, these failure conditions are reported to
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires October 2005 6
the PXC and subsequent recovery actions performed as described in the PXC and subsequent recovery actions performed as described in
Section 5. As such from the control plane viewpoint, this mechanism Section 5. As such from the control plane viewpoint, this mechanism
turn the OLS-PXC composed system into a single logical entity turn the OLS-PXC composed system into a single logical entity
allowing the consideration of the same failure management mechanisms allowing the consideration of the same failure management mechanisms
for such entity as for any other O-E-O capable device. for such entity as for any other O-E-O capable device.
More generally, the following are typical failure conditions in More generally, the following are typical failure conditions in
SONET/SDH and pre-OTN networks: SONET/SDH and pre-OTN networks:
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires March 2005 6
- Loss of Light (LOL)/Loss of Signal (LOS): Signal Failure (SF) - Loss of Light (LOL)/Loss of Signal (LOS): Signal Failure (SF)
condition where the optical signal is not detected any longer on condition where the optical signal is not detected any longer on
the receiver of a given interface. the receiver of a given interface.
- Signal Degrade (SD): detection of the signal degradation over - Signal Degrade (SD): detection of the signal degradation over
a specific period of time. a specific period of time.
- For SONET/SDH payloads, all of the above-mentioned supervision - For SONET/SDH payloads, all of the above-mentioned supervision
capabilities can be used, resulting in SD or SF condition. capabilities can be used, resulting in SD or SF condition.
In summary, the following cases apply when considering the In summary, the following cases apply when considering the
communication between the detecting and reporting entities: communication between the detecting and reporting entities:
skipping to change at line 372 skipping to change at line 378
In some cases, this accurate failure localization information may be In some cases, this accurate failure localization information may be
less urgent to determine if it requires performing more time less urgent to determine if it requires performing more time
consuming failure isolation (see also Section 4.4). This is consuming failure isolation (see also Section 4.4). This is
particularly the case when edge-to-edge LSP recovery (edge referring particularly the case when edge-to-edge LSP recovery (edge referring
to a sub-network end-node for instance) is performed based on a to a sub-network end-node for instance) is performed based on a
simple failure notification (including the identification of the simple failure notification (including the identification of the
working LSPs under failure condition). In this case, a more accurate working LSPs under failure condition). In this case, a more accurate
localization and isolation can be performed after recovery of these localization and isolation can be performed after recovery of these
LSPs. LSPs.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires October 2005 7
Failure localization should be triggered immediately after the fault Failure localization should be triggered immediately after the fault
detection phase. This operation can be performed at the transport detection phase. This operation can be performed at the transport
plane and/or, if unavailable (via the transport plane), the control plane and/or, if unavailable (via the transport plane), the control
plane level where dedicated signaling messages can be used. When plane level where dedicated signaling messages can be used. When
performed at the control plane level, a protocol such as LMP (see performed at the control plane level, a protocol such as LMP (see
[LMP], Section 6) can be used for failure localization purposes. [LMP], Section 6) can be used for failure localization purposes.
4.3 Failure Notification 4.3 Failure Notification
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires March 2005 7
Failure notification is used 1) to inform intermediate nodes that an Failure notification is used 1) to inform intermediate nodes that an
LSP/span failure has occurred and has been detected 2) to inform the LSP/span failure has occurred and has been detected 2) to inform the
deciding entities (which can correspond to any intermediate or end- deciding entities (which can correspond to any intermediate or end-
point of the failed LSP/span) that the corresponding service is not point of the failed LSP/span) that the corresponding service is not
available. In general, these deciding entities will be the ones available. In general, these deciding entities will be the ones
taking the appropriate recovery decision. When co-located with the taking the appropriate recovery decision. When co-located with the
recovering entity, these entities will also perform the recovering entity, these entities will also perform the
corresponding recovery action(s). corresponding recovery action(s).
Failure notification can be either provided by the transport or by Failure notification can be either provided by the transport or by
skipping to change at line 426 skipping to change at line 432
On the other hand, using a failure notification mechanism through On the other hand, using a failure notification mechanism through
the control plane would provide the possibility to trigger either a the control plane would provide the possibility to trigger either a
protection or a restoration action via the control plane. This has protection or a restoration action via the control plane. This has
the advantage that a control plane recovery responsible entity does the advantage that a control plane recovery responsible entity does
not necessarily have to be co-located with a transport not necessarily have to be co-located with a transport
maintenance/recovery domain. A control plane recovery domain can be maintenance/recovery domain. A control plane recovery domain can be
defined at entities not supporting a transport plane recovery. defined at entities not supporting a transport plane recovery.
Moreover, as specified in [RFC3473], notification message exchanges Moreover, as specified in [RFC3473], notification message exchanges
through a GMPLS control plane may not follow the same path as the through a GMPLS control plane may not follow the same path as the
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires October 2005 8
LSP/spans for which these messages carry the status. In turn, this LSP/spans for which these messages carry the status. In turn, this
ensures a fast, reliable (through acknowledgement and the use of ensures a fast, reliable (through acknowledgement and the use of
either a dedicated control plane network or disjoint control either a dedicated control plane network or disjoint control
channels) and efficient (through the aggregation of several LSP/span channels) and efficient (through the aggregation of several LSP/span
status within the same message) failure notification mechanism. status within the same message) failure notification mechanism.
The other important properties to be met by the failure notification The other important properties to be met by the failure notification
mechanism are mainly the following: mechanism are mainly the following:
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires March 2005 8
- Notification messages must provide enough information such that - Notification messages must provide enough information such that
the most efficient subsequent recovery action will be taken (in the most efficient subsequent recovery action will be taken (in
most of the recovery types and schemes this action is even most of the recovery types and schemes this action is even
deterministic) at the recovering entities. Remember here that deterministic) at the recovering entities. Remember here that
these entities can be either intermediate or end-points through these entities can be either intermediate or end-points through
which normal traffic flows. Based on local policy, intermediate which normal traffic flows. Based on local policy, intermediate
nodes may not use this information for subsequent recovery actions nodes may not use this information for subsequent recovery actions
(see for instance the APS protocol phases as described in [TERM]). (see for instance the APS protocol phases as described in [TERM]).
In addition, since fast notification is a mechanism running in In addition, since fast notification is a mechanism running in
collaboration with the existing GMPLS signalling (see [RFC3473]) collaboration with the existing GMPLS signalling (see [RFC3473])
skipping to change at line 480 skipping to change at line 487
aggregated at the node detecting the failure(s) 2) the failure aggregated at the node detecting the failure(s) 2) the failure
notifications are directed to a restricted set of destinations (in notifications are directed to a restricted set of destinations (in
general the end-points) and that 3) failure notification general the end-points) and that 3) failure notification
suppression (i.e. alarm suppression) is provided in order to limit suppression (i.e. alarm suppression) is provided in order to limit
flooding in case of multiple and/or correlated failures appearing flooding in case of multiple and/or correlated failures appearing
at several locations in the network. at several locations in the network.
- Alarm correlation and aggregation (at the failure detecting - Alarm correlation and aggregation (at the failure detecting
node) implies a consistent decision based on the conditions for node) implies a consistent decision based on the conditions for
which a trade-off between fast convergence (at detecting node) and which a trade-off between fast convergence (at detecting node) and
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires October 2005 9
fast notification (implying that correlation and aggregation fast notification (implying that correlation and aggregation
occurs at receiving end-points) can be found. occurs at receiving end-points) can be found.
4.4 Failure Correlation 4.4 Failure Correlation
A single failure event (such as a span failure) can result into A single failure event (such as a span failure) can result into
reporting multiple failures (such as individual LSP failures) reporting multiple failures (such as individual LSP failures)
conditions. These can be grouped (i.e. correlated) to reduce the conditions. These can be grouped (i.e. correlated) to reduce the
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires March 2005 9
number of failure conditions communicated on the reporting channel, number of failure conditions communicated on the reporting channel,
for both in-band and out-of-band failure reporting. for both in-band and out-of-band failure reporting.
In such a scenario, it can be important to wait for a certain period In such a scenario, it can be important to wait for a certain period
of time, typically called failure correlation time, and gather all of time, typically called failure correlation time, and gather all
the failures to report them as a group of failures (or simply group the failures to report them as a group of failures (or simply group
failure). For instance, this approach can be provided using LMP-WDM failure). For instance, this approach can be provided using LMP-WDM
for pre-OTN networks (see [LMP-WDM]) or when using Signal Failure/ for pre-OTN networks (see [LMP-WDM]) or when using Signal Failure/
Degrade Group in the SONET/SDH context. Degrade Group in the SONET/SDH context.
skipping to change at line 535 skipping to change at line 542
by the control plane in case of LSP/span recovery: by the control plane in case of LSP/span recovery:
1. LSP/span Protection 1. LSP/span Protection
- Phase 1: Failure detection Transport plane - Phase 1: Failure detection Transport plane
- Phase 2: Failure localization/isolation Transport/Control plane - Phase 2: Failure localization/isolation Transport/Control plane
- Phase 3: Failure notification Transport/Control plane - Phase 3: Failure notification Transport/Control plane
- Phase 4: Protection switching Transport/Control plane - Phase 4: Protection switching Transport/Control plane
- Phase 5: Reversion (normalization) Transport/Control plane - Phase 5: Reversion (normalization) Transport/Control plane
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires October 2005 10
Note: in the context of LSP/span protection, control plane actions Note: in the context of LSP/span protection, control plane actions
can be performed either for operational purposes and/or can be performed either for operational purposes and/or
synchronization purposes (vertical synchronization between transport synchronization purposes (vertical synchronization between transport
and control plane) and/or notification purposes (horizontal and control plane) and/or notification purposes (horizontal
synchronization between end-nodes at control plane level). This synchronization between end-nodes at control plane level). This
suggests the selection of the responsible plane (in particular for suggests the selection of the responsible plane (in particular for
protection switching) during the provisioning phase of the protection switching) during the provisioning phase of the
protected/protection LSP. protected/protection LSP.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires March 2005 10
2. LSP/span Restoration 2. LSP/span Restoration
- Phase 1: Failure detection Transport plane - Phase 1: Failure detection Transport plane
- Phase 2: Failure localization/isolation Transport/Control plane - Phase 2: Failure localization/isolation Transport/Control plane
- Phase 3: Failure notification Control plane - Phase 3: Failure notification Control plane
- Phase 4: Recovery switching Control plane - Phase 4: Recovery switching Control plane
- Phase 5: Reversion (normalization) Control plane - Phase 5: Reversion (normalization) Control plane
Therefore, this document primarily focuses on provisioning of LSP Therefore, this document primarily focuses on provisioning of LSP
recovery resources, failure notification mechanisms, recovery recovery resources, failure notification mechanisms, recovery
skipping to change at line 590 skipping to change at line 597
- benefits from a simpler architecture making it more suitable for - benefits from a simpler architecture making it more suitable for
mesh-based recovery types and schemes (on a per channel basis). mesh-based recovery types and schemes (on a per channel basis).
- when providing suppression of intermediate node transponders (vs. - when providing suppression of intermediate node transponders (vs.
use of non-standard masking of upstream failures) e.g. use of use of non-standard masking of upstream failures) e.g. use of
squelching, implies that failures (such as LoL) will propagate to squelching, implies that failures (such as LoL) will propagate to
edge nodes giving the possibility to initiate recovery actions edge nodes giving the possibility to initiate recovery actions
driven by upper layers. driven by upper layers.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires October 2005 11
The main disadvantage comes from the lack of interworking due to the The main disadvantage comes from the lack of interworking due to the
large amount of failure management (in particular failure large amount of failure management (in particular failure
notification protocols) and recovery mechanisms currently available. notification protocols) and recovery mechanisms currently available.
Note also, that for all-optical networks, combination of recovery Note also, that for all-optical networks, combination of recovery
with optical physical impairments is left for a future release of with optical physical impairments is left for a future release of
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires March 2005 11
this document since corresponding detection technologies are under this document since corresponding detection technologies are under
specification. specification.
5.2.3 SONET/SDH Recovery 5.2.3 SONET/SDH Recovery
Some of the advantages of SONET [T1.105]/SDH [G.707] and more Some of the advantages of SONET [T1.105]/SDH [G.707] and more
generically any TDM transport plane recovery are that they provide: generically any TDM transport plane recovery are that they provide:
- Protection types operating at the data plane level are - Protection types operating at the data plane level are
standardized (see [G.841]) and can operate across protected standardized (see [G.841]) and can operate across protected
skipping to change at line 644 skipping to change at line 650
5.3 Specific Aspects of Control Plane-based Recovery Mechanisms 5.3 Specific Aspects of Control Plane-based Recovery Mechanisms
5.3.1 In-band vs Out-of-band Signalling 5.3.1 In-band vs Out-of-band Signalling
The nodes communicate through the use of IP terminating control The nodes communicate through the use of IP terminating control
channels defining the control plane (transport) topology. In this channels defining the control plane (transport) topology. In this
context, two classes of transport mechanisms can be considered here context, two classes of transport mechanisms can be considered here
i.e. in-fiber or out-of-fiber (through a dedicated physically i.e. in-fiber or out-of-fiber (through a dedicated physically
diverse control network referred to as the Data Communication diverse control network referred to as the Data Communication
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires October 2005 12
Network or DCN). The potential impact of the usage of an in-fiber Network or DCN). The potential impact of the usage of an in-fiber
(signalling) transport mechanism is briefly considered here. (signalling) transport mechanism is briefly considered here.
In-fiber transport mechanism can be further subdivided into in-band In-fiber transport mechanism can be further subdivided into in-band
and out-of-band. As such, the distinction between in-fiber in-band and out-of-band. As such, the distinction between in-fiber in-band
and in-fiber out-of-band signalling reduces to the consideration of and in-fiber out-of-band signalling reduces to the consideration of
a logically versus physically embedded control plane topology with a logically versus physically embedded control plane topology with
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires March 2005 12
respect to the transport plane topology. In the scope of this respect to the transport plane topology. In the scope of this
document, it is assumed that at least one IP control channel between document, it is assumed that at least one IP control channel between
each pair of adjacent nodes is continuously available to enable the each pair of adjacent nodes is continuously available to enable the
exchange of recovery-related information and messages. Thus, in exchange of recovery-related information and messages. Thus, in
either case (i.e. in-band or out-of-band) at least one logical or either case (i.e. in-band or out-of-band) at least one logical or
physical control channel between each pair of nodes is always physical control channel between each pair of nodes is always
expected to be available. expected to be available.
Therefore, the key issue when using in-fiber signalling is whether Therefore, the key issue when using in-fiber signalling is whether
one can assume independence between the fault-tolerance capabilities one can assume independence between the fault-tolerance capabilities
skipping to change at line 699 skipping to change at line 705
Notice that after the failure detection time, if only control plane Notice that after the failure detection time, if only control plane
based failure management is provided, the peering node is unaware of based failure management is provided, the peering node is unaware of
the failure detection status of its neighbor. the failure detection status of its neighbor.
------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
| | | |Tx Rx| | | | | | | |Tx Rx| | | |
| NodeA |----...----| NodeB |xxxxxxxxx| NodeC |----...----| NodeD | | NodeA |----...----| NodeB |xxxxxxxxx| NodeC |----...----| NodeD |
| |----...----| |---------| |----...----| | | |----...----| |---------| |----...----| |
------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires October 2005 13
t0 >>>>>>> F t0 >>>>>>> F
t1 x <---------------x t1 x <---------------x
Notification Notification
t2 <--------...--------x x--------...--------> t2 <--------...--------x x--------...-------->
Up Notification Down Notification Up Notification Down Notification
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires March 2005 13
------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
| | | |Tx Rx| | | | | | | |Tx Rx| | | |
| NodeA |----...----| NodeB |xxxxxxxxx| NodeC |----...----| NodeD | | NodeA |----...----| NodeB |xxxxxxxxx| NodeC |----...----| NodeD |
| |----...----| |xxxxxxxxx| |----...----| | | |----...----| |xxxxxxxxx| |----...----| |
------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
t0 F <<<<<<< >>>>>>> F t0 F <<<<<<< >>>>>>> F
t1 x <-------------> x t1 x <-------------> x
Notification Notification
skipping to change at line 753 skipping to change at line 759
LSP, node B should send an upstream notification message (see LSP, node B should send an upstream notification message (see
[RFC3473]) to the ingress node A and node C may send a downstream [RFC3473]) to the ingress node A and node C may send a downstream
notification message (see [RFC3473]) to the egress node D. notification message (see [RFC3473]) to the egress node D.
However, in such a case only node A referred to as the "master" However, in such a case only node A referred to as the "master"
(node D being then referred to as the "slave" per [TERM]), would (node D being then referred to as the "slave" per [TERM]), would
initiate an edge to edge recovery action. Note that the other LSP initiate an edge to edge recovery action. Note that the other LSP
end-node (i.e. node D in this case) may be optionally notified end-node (i.e. node D in this case) may be optionally notified
using a downstream notification message (see [RFC3473]). using a downstream notification message (see [RFC3473]).
In case of bi-directional failure, node B should send an upstream In case of bi-directional failure, node B should send an upstream
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires October 2005 14
notification message (see [RFC3473]) to the ingress node A and notification message (see [RFC3473]) to the ingress node A and
node C may send a downstream notification message (see [RFC3473]) node C may send a downstream notification message (see [RFC3473])
to the egress node D. However, due to the dependence on the LSP to the egress node D. However, due to the dependence on the LSP
directionality, only ingress node A would initiate an edge to edge directionality, only ingress node A would initiate an edge to edge
recovery action. Note that the other LSP end-node (i.e. node D in recovery action. Note that the other LSP end-node (i.e. node D in
this case) should also be notified of this event using a this case) should also be notified of this event using a
downstream notification message (see [RFC3473]). For instance, if downstream notification message (see [RFC3473]). For instance, if
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires March 2005 14
an LSP directed from D to A is under failure condition, only the an LSP directed from D to A is under failure condition, only the
notification message sent from node C to D would initiate a notification message sent from node C to D would initiate a
recovery action and, in this case, per [TERM], the deciding and recovery action and, in this case, per [TERM], the deciding and
recovering node D is referred to as the "master" while node A is recovering node D is referred to as the "master" while node A is
referred to as the "slave" (i.e. recovering only entity). referred to as the "slave" (i.e. recovering only entity).
Note: The determination of the master and the slave may be based Note: The determination of the master and the slave may be based
either on configured information or dedicated protocol capability. either on configured information or dedicated protocol capability.
In the above scenarios, the path followed by the upstream and In the above scenarios, the path followed by the upstream and
skipping to change at line 808 skipping to change at line 814
Consequently the failure notification messages sub-sequent to a bi- Consequently the failure notification messages sub-sequent to a bi-
directional span failure affecting several LSPs (or the whole group directional span failure affecting several LSPs (or the whole group
of LSPs it carries) are not necessarily directed toward the same of LSPs it carries) are not necessarily directed toward the same
initiator nodes. In particular these messages may be directed to initiator nodes. In particular these messages may be directed to
both the upstream and downstream nodes to the failure. Therefore, both the upstream and downstream nodes to the failure. Therefore,
such span failure may trigger recovery actions to be performed from such span failure may trigger recovery actions to be performed from
both sides (i.e. both from the upstream and the downstream node to both sides (i.e. both from the upstream and the downstream node to
the failure). In order to facilitate the definition of the the failure). In order to facilitate the definition of the
corresponding recovery mechanisms (and their sequence), one assumes corresponding recovery mechanisms (and their sequence), one assumes
here as well, that per [TERM] the deciding (and recovering) entity, here as well, that per [TERM] the deciding (and recovering) entity,
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires October 2005 15
referred to as the "master" is the only initiator of the recovery of referred to as the "master" is the only initiator of the recovery of
the whole LSP (sub-)group. the whole LSP (sub-)group.
5.3.4 Difference between LSP, LSP Segment and Span Recovery 5.3.4 Difference between LSP, LSP Segment and Span Recovery
The recovery definitions given in [TERM] are quite generic and apply The recovery definitions given in [TERM] are quite generic and apply
for link (or local span) and LSP recovery. The major difference for link (or local span) and LSP recovery. The major difference
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires March 2005 15
between LSP, LSP Segment and span recovery is related to the number between LSP, LSP Segment and span recovery is related to the number
of intermediate nodes that the signalling messages have to travel. of intermediate nodes that the signalling messages have to travel.
Since nodes are not necessarily adjacent in case of LSP (or LSP Since nodes are not necessarily adjacent in case of LSP (or LSP
Segment) recovery, signalling message exchanges from the reporting Segment) recovery, signalling message exchanges from the reporting
to the deciding/recovery entity may have to cross several to the deciding/recovery entity may have to cross several
intermediate nodes. In particular, this applies for the notification intermediate nodes. In particular, this applies for the notification
messages due to the number of hops separating the location of a messages due to the number of hops separating the location of a
failure occurrence from its destination. This results in an failure occurrence from its destination. This results in an
additional propagation and forwarding delay. Note that the former additional propagation and forwarding delay. Note that the former
delay may in certain circumstances be non-negligible; e.g. in case delay may in certain circumstances be non-negligible; e.g. in case
skipping to change at line 862 skipping to change at line 868
to initiate successful LSP restoration attempts, especially at high to initiate successful LSP restoration attempts, especially at high
loads, while not adding significantly to the long-term average loads, while not adding significantly to the long-term average
recovery time. Allowing additional attempts produces only small recovery time. Allowing additional attempts produces only small
additional gains in performance. This suggests using additional additional gains in performance. This suggests using additional
(intermediate) crankback signalling when using dynamic LSP (intermediate) crankback signalling when using dynamic LSP
restoration (described in Section 5.5.2 - case 2). Details on restoration (described in Section 5.5.2 - case 2). Details on
crankback signalling are outside the scope of the present document. crankback signalling are outside the scope of the present document.
5.4 Difference between Recovery Type and Scheme 5.4 Difference between Recovery Type and Scheme
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires October 2005 16
[TERM] defines the basic LSP/span recovery types. This section [TERM] defines the basic LSP/span recovery types. This section
describes the recovery schemes that can be built using these describes the recovery schemes that can be built using these
recovery types. In brief, a recovery scheme is defined as the recovery types. In brief, a recovery scheme is defined as the
combination of several ingress-egress node pairs supporting a given combination of several ingress-egress node pairs supporting a given
recovery type (from the set of the recovery types they allow). recovery type (from the set of the recovery types they allow).
Several examples are provided here to illustrate the difference Several examples are provided here to illustrate the difference
between recovery types such as 1:1 or M:N and recovery schemes such between recovery types such as 1:1 or M:N and recovery schemes such
as (1:1)^n or (M:N)^n referred to as shared-mesh recovery. as (1:1)^n or (M:N)^n referred to as shared-mesh recovery.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires March 2005 16
1. (1:1)^n with recovery resource sharing 1. (1:1)^n with recovery resource sharing
The exponent, n, indicates the number of times a 1:1 recovery type The exponent, n, indicates the number of times a 1:1 recovery type
is applied between at most n different ingress-egress node pairs. is applied between at most n different ingress-egress node pairs.
Here, at most n pairs of disjoint working and recovery LSPs/spans Here, at most n pairs of disjoint working and recovery LSPs/spans
share at most n times a common resource. Since the working LSPs/ share at most n times a common resource. Since the working LSPs/
spans are mutually disjoint, simultaneous requests for use of the spans are mutually disjoint, simultaneous requests for use of the
shared (common) resource will only occur in case of simultaneous shared (common) resource will only occur in case of simultaneous
failures, which is less likely to happen. failures, which is less likely to happen.
skipping to change at line 916 skipping to change at line 922
and to the M recovery LSPs/spans while sharing at most n times M and to the M recovery LSPs/spans while sharing at most n times M
common resources. common resources.
In both schemes, it results in a "group" of sum{n=1}^N N{n} working In both schemes, it results in a "group" of sum{n=1}^N N{n} working
LSPs and a pool of shared recovery resources, not all of which are LSPs and a pool of shared recovery resources, not all of which are
available to any given working LSP. In such conditions, defining a available to any given working LSP. In such conditions, defining a
metric that describes the amount of overlap among the recovery LSPs metric that describes the amount of overlap among the recovery LSPs
would give some indication of the group's ability to handle would give some indication of the group's ability to handle
simultaneous failures of multiple LSPs. simultaneous failures of multiple LSPs.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires October 2005 17
For instance, in the simple (1:1)^n case, if n recovery LSPs in a For instance, in the simple (1:1)^n case, if n recovery LSPs in a
(1:1)^n group overlap, then it can handle only single failures; any (1:1)^n group overlap, then it can handle only single failures; any
simultaneous failure of multiple working LSPs will cause at least simultaneous failure of multiple working LSPs will cause at least
one working LSP to be denied automatic recovery. But if one one working LSP to be denied automatic recovery. But if one
considers for instance, a (2:2)^2 group in which there are two pairs considers for instance, a (2:2)^2 group in which there are two pairs
of overlapping recovery LSPs, then two LSPs (belonging to the same of overlapping recovery LSPs, then two LSPs (belonging to the same
pair) can be simultaneously recovered. The latter case can be pair) can be simultaneously recovered. The latter case can be
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires March 2005 17
illustrated by the following topology with 2 pairs of working LSPs illustrated by the following topology with 2 pairs of working LSPs
A-B-C and F-G-H and their respective recovery LSPs A-D-E-C and F-D- A-B-C and F-G-H and their respective recovery LSPs A-D-E-C and F-D-
E-H that share two common D-E link resources. E-H that share two common D-E link resources.
A========B========C A========B========C
\\ // \\ //
\\ // \\ //
D =========== E D =========== E
// \\ // \\
// \\ // \\
skipping to change at line 967 skipping to change at line 972
classified below to structure the analysis of the different recovery classified below to structure the analysis of the different recovery
mechanisms. mechanisms.
1. Pre-Provisioning 1. Pre-Provisioning
Proper recovery LSP pre-provisioning will help to alleviate the Proper recovery LSP pre-provisioning will help to alleviate the
failure of the working LSPs (due to the failure of the resources failure of the working LSPs (due to the failure of the resources
that carry these LSPs). As an example, one may compute and establish that carry these LSPs). As an example, one may compute and establish
the recovery LSP either end-to-end or segment-per-segment, to the recovery LSP either end-to-end or segment-per-segment, to
protect a working LSP from multiple failure events affecting protect a working LSP from multiple failure events affecting
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires October 2005 18
link(s), node(s) and/or SRLG(s). The recovery LSP pre-provisioning link(s), node(s) and/or SRLG(s). The recovery LSP pre-provisioning
options can be classified (in the below figure) as follows: options can be classified (in the below figure) as follows:
(1) the recovery path can be either pre-computed or computed (1) the recovery path can be either pre-computed or computed
on-demand. on-demand.
(2) when the recovery path is pre-computed, it can be either pre- (2) when the recovery path is pre-computed, it can be either pre-
signaled (implying recovery resource reservation) or signaled signaled (implying recovery resource reservation) or signaled
on-demand. on-demand.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires March 2005 18
(3) when the recovery resources are pre-signaled, they can be either (3) when the recovery resources are pre-signaled, they can be either
pre-selected or selected on-demand. pre-selected or selected on-demand.
Recovery LSP provisioning phases: Recovery LSP provisioning phases:
(1) Path Computation --> On-demand (1) Path Computation --> On-demand
| |
| |
--> Pre-Computed --> Pre-Computed
| |
skipping to change at line 1020 skipping to change at line 1026
or even per domain. In all these cases, the level of overbooking, as or even per domain. In all these cases, the level of overbooking, as
shown in the below figure, can be classified as dedicated (such as shown in the below figure, can be classified as dedicated (such as
1+1 and 1:1), shared (such as 1:N and M:N) or unprotected (and thus 1+1 and 1:1), shared (such as 1:N and M:N) or unprotected (and thus
restorable if enough recovery resources are available). restorable if enough recovery resources are available).
Overbooking levels: Overbooking levels:
+----- Dedicated (for instance: 1+1, 1:1, etc.) +----- Dedicated (for instance: 1+1, 1:1, etc.)
| |
| |
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires October 2005 19
+----- Shared (for instance: 1:N, M:N, etc.) +----- Shared (for instance: 1:N, M:N, etc.)
| |
Level of | Level of |
Overbooking -----+----- Unprotected (for instance: 0:1, 0:N) Overbooking -----+----- Unprotected (for instance: 0:1, 0:N)
Also, when using shared recovery, one may support preemptible extra- Also, when using shared recovery, one may support preemptible extra-
traffic; the recovery mechanism is then expected to allow preemption traffic; the recovery mechanism is then expected to allow preemption
of this low priority traffic in case of recovery resource contention of this low priority traffic in case of recovery resource contention
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires March 2005 19
during recovery operations. The following sections will consider the during recovery operations. The following sections will consider the
above-mentioned overbooking options when analyzing the different above-mentioned overbooking options when analyzing the different
recovery mechanisms. recovery mechanisms.
5.5.2 LSP Restoration 5.5.2 LSP Restoration
The following times are defined to provide a quantitative estimation The following times are defined to provide a quantitative estimation
about the time performance of the different LSP restoration about the time performance of the different LSP restoration
mechanisms (also referred to as LSP re-routing): mechanisms (also referred to as LSP re-routing):
skipping to change at line 1075 skipping to change at line 1081
selected) before a failure occurs. selected) before a failure occurs.
No reservation or selection of resources is performed along the No reservation or selection of resources is performed along the
restoration path before failure occurrence. As a result, there is no restoration path before failure occurrence. As a result, there is no
guarantee that a restoration LSP is available when a failure occurs. guarantee that a restoration LSP is available when a failure occurs.
The expected total restoration time T is thus equal to Ts + Trs or The expected total restoration time T is thus equal to Ts + Trs or
to Trs when a dedicated computation is performed for each working to Trs when a dedicated computation is performed for each working
LSP. LSP.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires October 2005 20
2. Without Route Pre-computation (or Full LSP re-routing) 2. Without Route Pre-computation (or Full LSP re-routing)
An end-to-end restoration LSP is dynamically established after the An end-to-end restoration LSP is dynamically established after the
failure(s) occur(s). Here, after failure occurrence, one or more failure(s) occur(s). Here, after failure occurrence, one or more
(disjoint) paths for the restoration LSP are dynamically computed (disjoint) paths for the restoration LSP are dynamically computed
and one is selected. As such, one can define this as a complete "LSP and one is selected. As such, one can define this as a complete "LSP
re-routing" mechanism. re-routing" mechanism.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires March 2005 20
No reservation or selection of resources is performed along the No reservation or selection of resources is performed along the
restoration path before failure occurrence. As a result, there is no restoration path before failure occurrence. As a result, there is no
guarantee that a restoration LSP is available when a failure occurs. guarantee that a restoration LSP is available when a failure occurs.
The expected total restoration time T is thus equal to Tc (+ Ts) + The expected total restoration time T is thus equal to Tc (+ Ts) +
Trs. Therefore, time performance between these two approaches Trs. Therefore, time performance between these two approaches
differs by the time required for route computation Tc (and its differs by the time required for route computation Tc (and its
potential selection time, Ts). potential selection time, Ts).
5.5.3 Pre-planned LSP Restoration 5.5.3 Pre-planned LSP Restoration
skipping to change at line 1126 skipping to change at line 1132
receive some feedback information on the sharing degree of the receive some feedback information on the sharing degree of the
recovery resource(s) that this scheme involves. recovery resource(s) that this scheme involves.
Upon failure detection/notification message reception, signaling is Upon failure detection/notification message reception, signaling is
initiated along the restoration path to select the resources, and to initiated along the restoration path to select the resources, and to
perform the appropriate operation at each node crossed by the perform the appropriate operation at each node crossed by the
restoration LSP (e.g. cross-connections). If lower priority LSPs restoration LSP (e.g. cross-connections). If lower priority LSPs
were established using the restoration resources, they must be were established using the restoration resources, they must be
preempted when the restoration LSP is activated. preempted when the restoration LSP is activated.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires October 2005 21
The expected total restoration time T is thus equal to Tas (post- The expected total restoration time T is thus equal to Tas (post-
failure activation) while operations performed before failure failure activation) while operations performed before failure
occurrence takes Tc + Ts + Tr. occurrence takes Tc + Ts + Tr.
2. With both resource reservation and resource pre-selection 2. With both resource reservation and resource pre-selection
Before failure occurrence, an end-to-end restoration path is pre- Before failure occurrence, an end-to-end restoration path is pre-
selected from a set of pre-computed (disjoint) paths. The selected from a set of pre-computed (disjoint) paths. The
restoration LSP is signaled along this pre-selected path to reserve restoration LSP is signaled along this pre-selected path to reserve
AND select resources at each node but these resources are not AND select resources at each node but these resources are not
committed at the data plane level. Such that the selection of the committed at the data plane level. Such that the selection of the
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires March 2005 21
recovery resources is committed at the control plane level only, no recovery resources is committed at the control plane level only, no
cross-connections are performed along the restoration path. cross-connections are performed along the restoration path.
In this case, the resources reserved and selected for each In this case, the resources reserved and selected for each
restoration LSP may be dedicated or even shared between multiple restoration LSP may be dedicated or even shared between multiple
restoration LSPs whose associated working LSPs are not expected to restoration LSPs whose associated working LSPs are not expected to
fail simultaneously. Local node policies can be applied to define fail simultaneously. Local node policies can be applied to define
the degree to which these resources can be shared across independent the degree to which these resources can be shared across independent
failures. Also, since a restoration scheme is considered, resource failures. Also, since a restoration scheme is considered, resource
sharing should not be limited to restoration LSPs starting and sharing should not be limited to restoration LSPs starting and
skipping to change at line 1182 skipping to change at line 1187
time) by allowing the recovery of the individual LSP segments time) by allowing the recovery of the individual LSP segments
constituting the end-to-end LSP. constituting the end-to-end LSP.
Also, by using the horizontal hierarchy approach described in Also, by using the horizontal hierarchy approach described in
Section 7.1, an end-to-end LSP can be recovered by multiple recovery Section 7.1, an end-to-end LSP can be recovered by multiple recovery
mechanisms applied on an LSP segment basis (e.g. 1:1 edge-to-edge mechanisms applied on an LSP segment basis (e.g. 1:1 edge-to-edge
LSP protection in a metro network and M:N edge-to-edge protection in LSP protection in a metro network and M:N edge-to-edge protection in
the core). These mechanisms are ideally independent and may even use the core). These mechanisms are ideally independent and may even use
different failure localization and notification mechanisms. different failure localization and notification mechanisms.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires October 2005 22
6. Reversion 6. Reversion
Reversion (a.k.a. normalization) is defined as the mechanism Reversion (a.k.a. normalization) is defined as the mechanism
allowing switching of normal traffic from the recovery LSP/span to allowing switching of normal traffic from the recovery LSP/span to
the working LSP/span previously under failure condition. Use of the working LSP/span previously under failure condition. Use of
normalization is at the discretion of the recovery domain policy. normalization is at the discretion of the recovery domain policy.
Normalization (also referred to as reversion) may impact the normal Normalization (also referred to as reversion) may impact the normal
traffic (a second hit) depending on the normalization mechanism traffic (a second hit) depending on the normalization mechanism
used. used.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires March 2005 22
If normalization is supported 1) the LSP/span must be returned to If normalization is supported 1) the LSP/span must be returned to
the working LSP/span when the failure condition clears 2) the the working LSP/span when the failure condition clears 2) the
capability to de-activate (turn-off) the use of reversion should be capability to de-activate (turn-off) the use of reversion should be
provided. De-activation of reversion should not impact the normal provided. De-activation of reversion should not impact the normal
traffic regardless of whether currently using the working or traffic regardless of whether currently using the working or
recovery LSP/span. recovery LSP/span.
Note: during the failure, the reuse of any non-failed resources Note: during the failure, the reuse of any non-failed resources
(e.g. LSP and/or spans) belonging to the working LSP/span is under (e.g. LSP and/or spans) belonging to the working LSP/span is under
the discretion of recovery domain policy. the discretion of recovery domain policy.
skipping to change at line 1236 skipping to change at line 1242
or SF condition, a local Wait-to-Restore (WTR) state will be or SF condition, a local Wait-to-Restore (WTR) state will be
activated before switching the normal traffic back to the recovered activated before switching the normal traffic back to the recovered
working LSP/span. working LSP/span.
During the reversion operation, since this state becomes the highest During the reversion operation, since this state becomes the highest
in priority, signalling must maintain the normal traffic on the in priority, signalling must maintain the normal traffic on the
recovery LSP/span from the previously failed working LSP/span. recovery LSP/span from the previously failed working LSP/span.
Moreover, during this WTR state, any null traffic or extra traffic Moreover, during this WTR state, any null traffic or extra traffic
(if applicable) request is rejected. (if applicable) request is rejected.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires October 2005 23
However, deactivation (cancellation) of the wait-to-restore timer However, deactivation (cancellation) of the wait-to-restore timer
may occur in case of higher priority request attempts. That is the may occur in case of higher priority request attempts. That is the
recovery LSP/span usage by the normal traffic may be preempted if a recovery LSP/span usage by the normal traffic may be preempted if a
higher priority request for this recovery LSP/span is attempted. higher priority request for this recovery LSP/span is attempted.
6.3 Orphans 6.3 Orphans
When a reversion operation is requested normal traffic must be When a reversion operation is requested normal traffic must be
switched from the recovery to the recovered working LSP/span. A switched from the recovery to the recovered working LSP/span. A
particular situation occurs when the previously working LSP/span particular situation occurs when the previously working LSP/span
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires March 2005 23
cannot be recovered such that normal traffic can not be switched cannot be recovered such that normal traffic can not be switched
back. In such a case, the LSP/span under failure condition (also back. In such a case, the LSP/span under failure condition (also
referred to as "orphan") must be cleared i.e. removed from the pool referred to as "orphan") must be cleared i.e. removed from the pool
of resources allocated for normal traffic. Otherwise, potential de- of resources allocated for normal traffic. Otherwise, potential de-
synchronization between the control and transport plane resource synchronization between the control and transport plane resource
usage can appear. Depending on the signalling protocol capabilities usage can appear. Depending on the signalling protocol capabilities
and behavior different mechanisms are expected here. and behavior different mechanisms are expected here.
Therefore any reserved or allocated resources for the LSP/span under Therefore any reserved or allocated resources for the LSP/span under
failure condition must be unreserved/de-allocated. Several ways can failure condition must be unreserved/de-allocated. Several ways can
skipping to change at line 1274 skipping to change at line 1279
7. Hierarchies 7. Hierarchies
Recovery mechanisms are being made available at multiple (if not Recovery mechanisms are being made available at multiple (if not
each) transport layers within so-called "IP/MPLS-over-optical" each) transport layers within so-called "IP/MPLS-over-optical"
networks. However, each layer has certain recovery features and one networks. However, each layer has certain recovery features and one
needs to determine the exact impact of the interaction between the needs to determine the exact impact of the interaction between the
recovery mechanisms provided by these layers. recovery mechanisms provided by these layers.
Hierarchies are used to build scalable complex systems. Abstraction Hierarchies are used to build scalable complex systems. Abstraction
is used as a mechanism to build large networks or as a technique for is used as a mechanism to build large networks or as a technique for
enforcing technology, topological or administrative boundaries. The enforcing technology, topological or administrative boundaries by
same hierarchical concept can be applied to control the network hiding the internal details. The same hierarchical concept can be
survivability. In general, it is expected that the recovery action applied to control the network survivability. Network survivability
is taken by the recoverable LSP/span closest to the failure in order is the set of capabilities that allow a network to restore affected
to avoid the multiplication of recovery actions. Moreover, recovery traffic in the event of a failure. Network survivability is defined
hierarchies can be also bound to control plane logical partitions further in [TERM]. In general, it is expected that the recovery
(e.g. administrative or topological boundaries). Each of them may action is taken by the recoverable LSP/span closest to the failure
apply different recovery mechanisms. in order to avoid the multiplication of recovery actions. Moreover,
recovery hierarchies can be also bound to control plane logical
partitions (e.g. administrative or topological boundaries). Each of
them may apply different recovery mechanisms.
In brief, the commonly accepted ideas are generally that the lower In brief, the commonly accepted ideas are generally that the lower
layers can provide coarse but faster recovery while the higher layers can provide coarse but faster recovery while the higher
layers can provide finer but slower recovery. Moreover, it is also layers can provide finer but slower recovery. Moreover, it is also
desirable to avoid similar layers with functional overlaps to desirable to avoid similar layers with functional overlaps to
optimize network resource utilization and processing overhead. In
this context, this section intends to analyze these hierarchical D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires October 2005 24
aspects including the physical (passive) layer(s). optimize network resource utilization and processing overhead, since
repeating the same capabilities at each layer does not create any
added value for the network as a whole. In addition, even if a lower
layer recovery mechanism is enabled, doing so does not prevent the
additional provision of a recovery mechanism at the upper layer. The
inverse statement does not necessarily hold; that is, enabling an
upper layer recovery mechanism may prevent the use of a lower layer
recovery mechanism. In this context, this section intends to analyze
these hierarchical aspects including the physical (passive)
layer(s).
7.1 Horizontal Hierarchy (Partitioning) 7.1 Horizontal Hierarchy (Partitioning)
A horizontal hierarchy is defined when partitioning a single-layer A horizontal hierarchy is defined when partitioning a single-layer
network (and its control plane) into several recovery domains. network (and its control plane) into several recovery domains.
Within a domain, the recovery scope may extend over a link (or Within a domain, the recovery scope may extend over a link (or
span), LSP segment or even an end-to-end LSP. Moreover, an span), LSP segment or even an end-to-end LSP. Moreover, an
administrative domain may consist of a single recovery domain or can administrative domain may consist of a single recovery domain or can
be partitioned into several smaller recovery domains. The operator be partitioned into several smaller recovery domains. The operator
can partition the network into recovery domains based on physical can partition the network into recovery domains based on physical
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires March 2005 24
network topology, control plane capabilities or various traffic network topology, control plane capabilities or various traffic
engineering constraints. engineering constraints.
An example often addressed in the literature is the metro-core-metro An example often addressed in the literature is the metro-core-metro
application (sometimes extended to a metro-metro/core-core) within a application (sometimes extended to a metro-metro/core-core) within a
single transport layer (see Section 7.2). For such a case, an end- single transport layer (see Section 7.2). For such a case, an end-
to-end LSP is defined between the ingress and egress metro nodes, to-end LSP is defined between the ingress and egress metro nodes,
while LSP segments may be defined within the metro or core sub- while LSP segments may be defined within the metro or core sub-
networks. Each of these topological structures determines a so- networks. Each of these topological structures determines a so-
called "recovery domain" since each of the LSPs they carry can have called "recovery domain" since each of the LSPs they carry can have
skipping to change at line 1335 skipping to change at line 1350
a vertical coordination of the recovery mechanisms: a vertical coordination of the recovery mechanisms:
- The lower the layer the faster the notification and switching - The lower the layer the faster the notification and switching
- The higher the layer the finer the granularity of the recoverable - The higher the layer the finer the granularity of the recoverable
entity and therefore the granularity of the recovery resource entity and therefore the granularity of the recovery resource
Moreover, in the context of this analysis, a vertical hierarchy Moreover, in the context of this analysis, a vertical hierarchy
consists of multiple layered transport planes providing different: consists of multiple layered transport planes providing different:
- Discrete bandwidth granularities for non-packet LSPs such as OCh, - Discrete bandwidth granularities for non-packet LSPs such as OCh,
ODUk, STS_SPE/HOVC and VT_SPE/LOVC LSPs and continuous bandwidth ODUk, STS_SPE/HOVC and VT_SPE/LOVC LSPs and continuous bandwidth
granularities for packet LSPs granularities for packet LSPs
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires October 2005 25
- Potential recovery capabilities with different temporal - Potential recovery capabilities with different temporal
granularities: ranging from milliseconds to tens of seconds granularities: ranging from milliseconds to tens of seconds
Note: based on the bandwidth granularity we can determine four Note: based on the bandwidth granularity we can determine four
classes of vertical hierarchies (1) packet over packet (2) packet classes of vertical hierarchies (1) packet over packet (2) packet
over circuit (3) circuit over packet and (4) circuit over circuit. over circuit (3) circuit over packet and (4) circuit over circuit.
Below we briefly expand on (4) only. (2) is covered in [RFC3386]. Below we briefly expand on (4) only. (2) is covered in [RFC3386].
(1) is extensively covered by the MPLS Working Group, and (3) by the (1) is extensively covered by the MPLS Working Group, and (3) by the
PWE3 Working Group. PWE3 Working Group.
skipping to change at line 1356 skipping to change at line 1373
and STS SPE/HOVC as independent layers, VT_SPE/LOVC LSP using the and STS SPE/HOVC as independent layers, VT_SPE/LOVC LSP using the
underlying STS_SPE/HOVC LSPs as links, for instance. In OTN, the underlying STS_SPE/HOVC LSPs as links, for instance. In OTN, the
ODUk path layers will lie on the OCh path layer i.e. the ODUk LSPs ODUk path layers will lie on the OCh path layer i.e. the ODUk LSPs
using the underlying OCh LSPs as OTUk links. Note here that lower using the underlying OCh LSPs as OTUk links. Note here that lower
layer LSPs may simply be provisioned and not necessarily dynamically layer LSPs may simply be provisioned and not necessarily dynamically
triggered or established (control driven approach). In this context, triggered or established (control driven approach). In this context,
an LSP at the path layer (i.e. established using GMPLS signalling), an LSP at the path layer (i.e. established using GMPLS signalling),
for instance an optical channel LSP, appears at the OTUk layer as a for instance an optical channel LSP, appears at the OTUk layer as a
link, controlled by a link management protocol such as LMP. link, controlled by a link management protocol such as LMP.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires March 2005 25
The first key issue with multi-layer recovery is that achieving The first key issue with multi-layer recovery is that achieving
individual or bulk LSP recovery will be as efficient as the individual or bulk LSP recovery will be as efficient as the
underlying link (local span) recovery. In such a case, the span can underlying link (local span) recovery. In such a case, the span can
be either protected or unprotected, but the LSP it carries must be be either protected or unprotected, but the LSP it carries must be
(at least locally) recoverable. Therefore, the span recovery process (at least locally) recoverable. Therefore, the span recovery process
can be either independent when protected (or restorable), or can be either independent when protected (or restorable), or
triggered by the upper LSP recovery process. The former case triggered by the upper LSP recovery process. The former case
requires coordination to achieve subsequent LSP recovery. Therefore, requires coordination to achieve subsequent LSP recovery. Therefore,
in order to achieve robustness and fast convergence, multi-layer in order to achieve robustness and fast convergence, multi-layer
recovery requires a fine-tuned coordination mechanism. recovery requires a fine-tuned coordination mechanism.
skipping to change at line 1388 skipping to change at line 1404
Therefore, one can expect that the definition of the recovery Therefore, one can expect that the definition of the recovery
mechanisms and protocol(s) is technology-independent such that they mechanisms and protocol(s) is technology-independent such that they
can be consistently implemented at different layers; this would in can be consistently implemented at different layers; this would in
turn simplify their global coordination. Moreover, as mentioned in turn simplify their global coordination. Moreover, as mentioned in
[RFC3386], some looser form of coordination and communication [RFC3386], some looser form of coordination and communication
between (vertical) layers such a consistent hold-off timer between (vertical) layers such a consistent hold-off timer
configuration (and setup through signalling during the working LSP configuration (and setup through signalling during the working LSP
establishment) can be considered, allowing the synchronization establishment) can be considered, allowing the synchronization
between recovery actions performed across these layers. between recovery actions performed across these layers.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires October 2005 26
7.2.1 Recovery Granularity 7.2.1 Recovery Granularity
In most environments, the design of the network and the vertical In most environments, the design of the network and the vertical
distribution of the LSP bandwidth are such that the recovery distribution of the LSP bandwidth are such that the recovery
granularity is finer at higher layers. The OTN and SONET/SDH layers granularity is finer at higher layers. The OTN and SONET/SDH layers
can only recover the whole section or the individual connections it can only recover the whole section or the individual connections it
transports whereas the IP/MPLS control plane can recover individual transports whereas the IP/MPLS control plane can recover individual
packet LSPs or groups of packet LSPs and this independently of their packet LSPs or groups of packet LSPs and this independently of their
granularity. On the other side, the recovery granularity at the sub- granularity. On the other side, the recovery granularity at the sub-
wavelength level (i.e. SONET/SDH) can be provided only when the wavelength level (i.e. SONET/SDH) can be provided only when the
skipping to change at line 1409 skipping to change at line 1427
not with optical channel level). Therefore, the network layer can not with optical channel level). Therefore, the network layer can
deliver control-plane driven recovery mechanisms on a per-LSP basis deliver control-plane driven recovery mechanisms on a per-LSP basis
if and only if these LSPs have their corresponding switching if and only if these LSPs have their corresponding switching
granularity supported at the transport plane level. granularity supported at the transport plane level.
7.3 Escalation Strategies 7.3 Escalation Strategies
There are two types of escalation strategies (see [DEMEESTER]): There are two types of escalation strategies (see [DEMEESTER]):
bottom-up and top-down. bottom-up and top-down.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires March 2005 26
The bottom-up approach assumes that lower layer recovery types and The bottom-up approach assumes that lower layer recovery types and
schemes are more expedient and faster than the upper layer one. schemes are more expedient and faster than the upper layer one.
Therefore we can inhibit or hold-off higher layer recovery. However Therefore we can inhibit or hold-off higher layer recovery. However
this assumption is not entirely true. Consider for instance a this assumption is not entirely true. Consider for instance a
Sonet/SDH based protection mechanism (with a less than 50 ms Sonet/SDH based protection mechanism (with a less than 50 ms
protection switching time) lying on top of an OTN restoration protection switching time) lying on top of an OTN restoration
mechanism (with a less than 200 ms restoration time). Therefore, mechanism (with a less than 200 ms restoration time). Therefore,
this assumption should be (at least) clarified as: lower layer this assumption should be (at least) clarified as: lower layer
recovery mechanism is expected to be faster than upper level one if recovery mechanism is expected to be faster than upper level one if
the same type of recovery mechanism is used at each layer. the same type of recovery mechanism is used at each layer.
skipping to change at line 1443 skipping to change at line 1460
functionality between layers must be configurable and tunable. functionality between layers must be configurable and tunable.
An example of coordination between the optical and packet layer An example of coordination between the optical and packet layer
control plane enables for instance the optical layer performing the control plane enables for instance the optical layer performing the
failure management operations (in particular, failure detection and failure management operations (in particular, failure detection and
notification) while giving to the packet layer control plane the notification) while giving to the packet layer control plane the
authority to decide and perform the recovery actions. In case the authority to decide and perform the recovery actions. In case the
packet layer recovery action is unsuccessful, fallback at the packet layer recovery action is unsuccessful, fallback at the
optical layer can be subsequently performed. optical layer can be subsequently performed.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires October 2005 27
The top-down approach attempts service recovery at the higher layers The top-down approach attempts service recovery at the higher layers
before invoking lower layer recovery. Higher layer recovery is before invoking lower layer recovery. Higher layer recovery is
service selective, and permits "per-CoS" or "per-connection" re- service selective, and permits "per-CoS" or "per-connection" re-
routing. With this approach, the most important aspect is that the routing. With this approach, the most important aspect is that the
upper layer should provide its own reliable and independent failure upper layer should provide its own reliable and independent failure
detection mechanism from the lower layer. detection mechanism from the lower layer.
The same reference also suggests recovery mechanisms incorporating a The same reference also suggests recovery mechanisms incorporating a
coordinated effort shared by two adjacent layers with periodic coordinated effort shared by two adjacent layers with periodic
status updates. Moreover, some of these recovery operations can be status updates. Moreover, some of these recovery operations can be
pre-assigned (on a per-link basis) to a certain layer, e.g. a given pre-assigned (on a per-link basis) to a certain layer, e.g. a given
link will be recovered at the packet layer while another will be link will be recovered at the packet layer while another will be
recovered at the optical layer. recovered at the optical layer.
7.4 Disjointness 7.4 Disjointness
Having link and node diverse working and recovery LSPs/spans does Having link and node diverse working and recovery LSPs/spans does
not guarantee their complete disjointness. Due to the common not guarantee their complete disjointness. Due to the common
physical layer topology (passive), additional hierarchical concepts physical layer topology (passive), additional hierarchical concepts
such as the Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) and mechanisms such as such as the Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) and mechanisms such as
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires March 2005 27
SRLG diverse path computation must be developed to provide complete SRLG diverse path computation must be developed to provide complete
working and recovery LSP/span disjointness (see [IPO-IMP] and working and recovery LSP/span disjointness (see [IPO-IMP] and
[GMPLS-RTG]). Otherwise, a failure affecting the working LSP/span [GMPLS-RTG]). Otherwise, a failure affecting the working LSP/span
would also potentially affect the recovery LSP/span; one refers to would also potentially affect the recovery LSP/span; one refers to
such an event as "common failure". such an event as "common failure".
7.4.1 SRLG Disjointness 7.4.1 SRLG Disjointness
A Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) is defined as the set of links A Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) is defined as the set of links
sharing a common risk (for instance, a common physical resource such sharing a common risk (for instance, a common physical resource such
skipping to change at line 1497 skipping to change at line 1513
3) The SRLG set S of an LSP is defined as the union of the 3) The SRLG set S of an LSP is defined as the union of the
individual SRLG s of the individual links composing this LSP. individual SRLG s of the individual links composing this LSP.
SRLG disjointness is also applicable to LSPs: SRLG disjointness is also applicable to LSPs:
The LSP SRLG disjointness concept is based on the following The LSP SRLG disjointness concept is based on the following
postulate: an LSP (i.e. sequence of links and nodes) covers an postulate: an LSP (i.e. sequence of links and nodes) covers an
SRLG if and only if it crosses one of the links or nodes SRLG if and only if it crosses one of the links or nodes
belonging to that SRLG. belonging to that SRLG.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires October 2005 28
Therefore, the SRLG disjointness for LSPs can be defined as Therefore, the SRLG disjointness for LSPs can be defined as
follows: two LSPs are disjoint with respect to an SRLG s if and follows: two LSPs are disjoint with respect to an SRLG s if and
only if they do not cover simultaneously this SRLG s. only if they do not cover simultaneously this SRLG s.
Whilst the SRLG disjointness for LSPs with respect to a set S of Whilst the SRLG disjointness for LSPs with respect to a set S of
SRLGs is defined as follows: two LSPs are disjoint with respect SRLGs is defined as follows: two LSPs are disjoint with respect
to a set of SRLGs S if and only if the common SRLGs between the to a set of SRLGs S if and only if the common SRLGs between the
sets of SRLGs they individually cover is disjoint from set S. sets of SRLGs they individually cover is disjoint from set S.
The impact on recovery is noticeable: SRLG disjointness is a The impact on recovery is noticeable: SRLG disjointness is a
necessary (but not a sufficient) condition to ensure network necessary (but not a sufficient) condition to ensure network
survivability. With respect to the physical network resources, a survivability. With respect to the physical network resources, a
working-recovery LSP/span pair must be SRLG disjoint in case of working-recovery LSP/span pair must be SRLG disjoint in case of
dedicated recovery type. On the other hand, in case of shared dedicated recovery type. On the other hand, in case of shared
recovery, a group of working LSP/span must be mutually SRLG-disjoint recovery, a group of working LSP/span must be mutually SRLG-disjoint
in order to allow for a (single and common) shared recovery LSP in order to allow for a (single and common) shared recovery LSP
itself SRLG-disjoint from each of the working LSPs/spans. itself SRLG-disjoint from each of the working LSPs/spans.
8. Recovery Mechanisms Analysis 8. Recovery Mechanisms Analysis
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires March 2005 28
In order to provide a structured analysis of the recovery mechanisms In order to provide a structured analysis of the recovery mechanisms
detailed in the previous sections, the following dimensions can be detailed in the previous sections, the following dimensions can be
considered: considered:
1. Fast convergence (performance): provide a mechanism that 1. Fast convergence (performance): provide a mechanism that
aggregates multiple failures (this implies fast failure aggregates multiple failures (this implies fast failure
detection and correlation mechanisms) and fast recovery decision detection and correlation mechanisms) and fast recovery decision
independently of the number of failures occurring in the optical independently of the number of failures occurring in the optical
network (implying also a fast failure notification). network (implying also a fast failure notification).
skipping to change at line 1550 skipping to change at line 1566
required for recovery purposes; this dimension can also be required for recovery purposes; this dimension can also be
referred to as optimizing the sharing degree of the recovery referred to as optimizing the sharing degree of the recovery
resources. resources.
5. Cost optimization: provide a cost-effective recovery type/scheme. 5. Cost optimization: provide a cost-effective recovery type/scheme.
However, these dimensions are either outside the scope of this However, these dimensions are either outside the scope of this
document such as cost optimization and recovery path computational document such as cost optimization and recovery path computational
aspects or mutually conflicting. For instance, it is obvious that aspects or mutually conflicting. For instance, it is obvious that
providing a 1+1 LSP protection minimizes the LSP downtime (in case providing a 1+1 LSP protection minimizes the LSP downtime (in case
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires October 2005 29
of failure) while being non-scalable and consuming recovery resource of failure) while being non-scalable and consuming recovery resource
without enabling any extra-traffic. without enabling any extra-traffic.
The following sections provide an analysis of the recovery phases The following sections provide an analysis of the recovery phases
and mechanisms detailed in the previous sections with respect to the and mechanisms detailed in the previous sections with respect to the
dimensions described here above to assess the GMPLS protocol suite dimensions described here above to assess the GMPLS protocol suite
capabilities and applicability. In turn, this allows the evaluation capabilities and applicability. In turn, this allows the evaluation
of the potential need for further GMPLS signaling and routing of the potential need for further GMPLS signaling and routing
extensions. extensions.
skipping to change at line 1571 skipping to change at line 1589
Fast convergence is related to the failure management operations. It Fast convergence is related to the failure management operations. It
refers to the elapsing time between the failure detection/ refers to the elapsing time between the failure detection/
correlation and hold-off time, point at which the recovery switching correlation and hold-off time, point at which the recovery switching
actions are initiated. This point has been detailed in Section 4. actions are initiated. This point has been detailed in Section 4.
8.2 Efficiency (Recovery Switching Time) 8.2 Efficiency (Recovery Switching Time)
In general, the more pre-assignment/pre-planning of the recovery In general, the more pre-assignment/pre-planning of the recovery
LSP/span, the more rapid the recovery is. Since protection implies LSP/span, the more rapid the recovery is. Since protection implies
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires March 2005 29
pre-assignment (and cross-connection) of the protection resources, pre-assignment (and cross-connection) of the protection resources,
in general, protection recover faster than restoration. in general, protection recover faster than restoration.
Span restoration is likely to be slower than most span protection Span restoration is likely to be slower than most span protection
types; however this greatly depends on the efficiency of the span types; however this greatly depends on the efficiency of the span
restoration signalling. LSP restoration with pre-signaled and pre- restoration signalling. LSP restoration with pre-signaled and pre-
selected recovery resources is likely to be faster than fully selected recovery resources is likely to be faster than fully
dynamic LSP restoration, especially because of the elimination of dynamic LSP restoration, especially because of the elimination of
any potential crankback during the recovery LSP establishment. any potential crankback during the recovery LSP establishment.
skipping to change at line 1606 skipping to change at line 1622
such is more robust with respect to the failure scenario scope. such is more robust with respect to the failure scenario scope.
Moreover, LSP segment restoration, in particular, dynamic Moreover, LSP segment restoration, in particular, dynamic
restoration (i.e. no path pre-computation so none of the recovery restoration (i.e. no path pre-computation so none of the recovery
resource is pre-reserved) will generally be faster than end-to-end resource is pre-reserved) will generally be faster than end-to-end
LSP restoration. However, local LSP restoration assumes that each LSP restoration. However, local LSP restoration assumes that each
LSP segment end-point has enough computational capacity to perform LSP segment end-point has enough computational capacity to perform
this operation while end-to-end LSP restoration requires only that this operation while end-to-end LSP restoration requires only that
LSP end-points provides this path computation capability. LSP end-points provides this path computation capability.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires October 2005 30
Recovery time objectives for SONET/SDH protection switching (not Recovery time objectives for SONET/SDH protection switching (not
including time to detect failure) are specified in [G.841] at 50 ms, including time to detect failure) are specified in [G.841] at 50 ms,
taking into account constraints on distance, number of connections taking into account constraints on distance, number of connections
involved, and in the case of ring enhanced protection, number of involved, and in the case of ring enhanced protection, number of
nodes in the ring. Recovery time objectives for restoration nodes in the ring. Recovery time objectives for restoration
mechanisms have been proposed through a separate effort [RFC3386]. mechanisms have been proposed through a separate effort [RFC3386].
8.3 Robustness 8.3 Robustness
In general, the less pre-assignment (protection)/pre-planning In general, the less pre-assignment (protection)/pre-planning
skipping to change at line 1627 skipping to change at line 1644
type or scheme is to a variety of single failures, provided that type or scheme is to a variety of single failures, provided that
adequate resources are available. Moreover, the pre-selection of the adequate resources are available. Moreover, the pre-selection of the
recovery resources gives in the case of multiple failure scenarios recovery resources gives in the case of multiple failure scenarios
less flexibility than no recovery resource pre-selection. For less flexibility than no recovery resource pre-selection. For
instance, if failures occur that affect two LSPs sharing a common instance, if failures occur that affect two LSPs sharing a common
link along their restoration paths, then only one of these LSPs can link along their restoration paths, then only one of these LSPs can
be recovered. This occurs unless the restoration path of at least be recovered. This occurs unless the restoration path of at least
one of these LSPs is re-computed or the local resource assignment is one of these LSPs is re-computed or the local resource assignment is
modified on the fly. modified on the fly.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires March 2005 30
In addition, recovery types and schemes with pre-planned recovery In addition, recovery types and schemes with pre-planned recovery
resources, in particular LSP/spans for protection and LSPs for resources, in particular LSP/spans for protection and LSPs for
restoration purposes, will not be able to recover from failures that restoration purposes, will not be able to recover from failures that
simultaneously affect both the working and recovery LSP/span. Thus, simultaneously affect both the working and recovery LSP/span. Thus,
the recovery resources should ideally be as disjoint as possible the recovery resources should ideally be as disjoint as possible
(with respect to link, node and SRLG) from the working ones, so that (with respect to link, node and SRLG) from the working ones, so that
any single failure event will not affect both working and recovery any single failure event will not affect both working and recovery
LSP/span. In brief, working and recovery resource must be fully LSP/span. In brief, working and recovery resource must be fully
diverse in order to guarantee that a given failure will not affect diverse in order to guarantee that a given failure will not affect
simultaneously the working and the recovery LSP/span. Also, the risk simultaneously the working and the recovery LSP/span. Also, the risk
skipping to change at line 1659 skipping to change at line 1675
LSP/span failure occurrences. Recovery schemes, in particular LSP/span failure occurrences. Recovery schemes, in particular
restoration, with pre-signaled resource reservation (with or without restoration, with pre-signaled resource reservation (with or without
pre-selection) should be capable to reserve the adequate amount of pre-selection) should be capable to reserve the adequate amount of
resource to ensure recovery from any specific set of failure events, resource to ensure recovery from any specific set of failure events,
such as any single SRLG failure, any two SRLG failures etc. such as any single SRLG failure, any two SRLG failures etc.
8.4 Resource Optimization 8.4 Resource Optimization
It is commonly admitted that sharing recovery resources provides It is commonly admitted that sharing recovery resources provides
network resource optimization. Therefore, from a resource network resource optimization. Therefore, from a resource
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires October 2005 31
utilization perspective, protection schemes are often classified utilization perspective, protection schemes are often classified
with respect to their degree of sharing recovery resources with with respect to their degree of sharing recovery resources with
respect to the working entities. Moreover, non-permanent bridging respect to the working entities. Moreover, non-permanent bridging
protection types allow (under normal conditions) for extra-traffic protection types allow (under normal conditions) for extra-traffic
over the recovery resources. over the recovery resources.
From this perspective 1) 1+1 LSP/Span protection is the most From this perspective 1) 1+1 LSP/Span protection is the most
resource consuming protection type since not allowing for any extra- resource consuming protection type since not allowing for any extra-
traffic 2) 1:1 LSP/span recovery requires dedicated recovery traffic 2) 1:1 LSP/span recovery requires dedicated recovery
LSP/span allowing for extra-traffic 3) 1:N and M:N LSP/span recovery LSP/span allowing for extra-traffic 3) 1:N and M:N LSP/span recovery
require 1 (M, respectively) recovery LSP/span (shared between the N require 1 (M, respectively) recovery LSP/span (shared between the N
working LSP/span) allowing for extra-traffic. Obviously, 1+1 working LSP/span) allowing for extra-traffic. Obviously, 1+1
protection precludes and 1:1 recovery does not allow for any protection precludes and 1:1 recovery does not allow for any
recovery LSP/span sharing whereas 1:N and M:N recovery do allow recovery LSP/span sharing whereas 1:N and M:N recovery do allow
sharing of 1 (M, respectively) recovery LSP/spans between N working sharing of 1 (M, respectively) recovery LSP/spans between N working
LSP/spans. However, despite the fact that 1:1 LSP recovery precludes LSP/spans. However, despite the fact that 1:1 LSP recovery precludes
the sharing of the recovery LSP, the recovery schemes (see Section the sharing of the recovery LSP, the recovery schemes (see Section
5.4) that can be built from it (e.g. (1:1)^n) do allow sharing of 5.4) that can be built from it (e.g. (1:1)^n) do allow sharing of
its recovery resources. In addition, the flexibility in the usage of its recovery resources. In addition, the flexibility in the usage of
shared recovery resources (in particular, shared links) may be shared recovery resources (in particular, shared links) may be
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires March 2005 31
limited because of network topology restrictions, e.g. fixed ring limited because of network topology restrictions, e.g. fixed ring
topology for traditional enhanced protection schemes. topology for traditional enhanced protection schemes.
On the other hand, when using LSP restoration with pre-signaled On the other hand, when using LSP restoration with pre-signaled
resource reservation, the amount of reserved restoration capacity is resource reservation, the amount of reserved restoration capacity is
determined by the local bandwidth reservation policies. In LSP determined by the local bandwidth reservation policies. In LSP
restoration schemes with re-provisioning, a pool of spare resources restoration schemes with re-provisioning, a pool of spare resources
can be defined from which all resources are selected after failure can be defined from which all resources are selected after failure
occurrence for the purpose of restoration path computation. The occurrence for the purpose of restoration path computation. The
degree to which restoration schemes allow sharing amongst multiple degree to which restoration schemes allow sharing amongst multiple
skipping to change at line 1714 skipping to change at line 1730
8.4.1. Recovery Resource Sharing 8.4.1. Recovery Resource Sharing
When recovery resources are shared over several LSP/Spans, the use When recovery resources are shared over several LSP/Spans, the use
of the Maximum Reservable Bandwidth, the Unreserved Bandwidth and of the Maximum Reservable Bandwidth, the Unreserved Bandwidth and
the Maximum LSP Bandwidth (see [GMPLS-RTG]) provides the information the Maximum LSP Bandwidth (see [GMPLS-RTG]) provides the information
needed to obtain the optimization of the network resources allocated needed to obtain the optimization of the network resources allocated
for shared recovery purposes. for shared recovery purposes.
The Maximum Reservable Bandwidth is defined as the Maximum Link The Maximum Reservable Bandwidth is defined as the Maximum Link
Bandwidth but it may be greater in case of link over-subscription. Bandwidth but it may be greater in case of link over-subscription.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires October 2005 32
The Unreserved Bandwidth (at priority p) is defined as the bandwidth The Unreserved Bandwidth (at priority p) is defined as the bandwidth
not yet reserved on a given TE link (its initial value for each not yet reserved on a given TE link (its initial value for each
priority p corresponds to the Maximum Reservable Bandwidth). Last, priority p corresponds to the Maximum Reservable Bandwidth). Last,
the Maximum LSP Bandwidth (at priority p) is defined as the smaller the Maximum LSP Bandwidth (at priority p) is defined as the smaller
of Unreserved Bandwidth (at priority p) and Maximum Link Bandwidth. of Unreserved Bandwidth (at priority p) and Maximum Link Bandwidth.
Here, one generally considers a recovery resource sharing degree (or Here, one generally considers a recovery resource sharing degree (or
ratio) to globally optimize the shared recovery resource usage. The ratio) to globally optimize the shared recovery resource usage. The
distribution of the bandwidth utilization per TE link can be distribution of the bandwidth utilization per TE link can be
inferred from the per-priority bandwidth pre-allocation. By using inferred from the per-priority bandwidth pre-allocation. By using
the Maximum LSP Bandwidth and the Maximum Reservable Bandwidth, the the Maximum LSP Bandwidth and the Maximum Reservable Bandwidth, the
amount of (over-provisioned) resources that can be used for shared amount of (over-provisioned) resources that can be used for shared
recovery purposes is known from the IGP. recovery purposes is known from the IGP.
In order to analyze this behavior, we define the difference between In order to analyze this behavior, we define the difference between
the Maximum Reservable Bandwidth (in the present case, this value is the Maximum Reservable Bandwidth (in the present case, this value is
greater than the Maximum Link Bandwidth) and the Maximum LSP greater than the Maximum Link Bandwidth) and the Maximum LSP
Bandwidth per TE link i as the Maximum Shareable Bandwidth or Bandwidth per TE link i as the Maximum Shareable Bandwidth or
max_R[i]. Within this quantity, the amount of bandwidth currently max_R[i]. Within this quantity, the amount of bandwidth currently
allocated for shared recovery per TE link i is defined as R[i]. Both allocated for shared recovery per TE link i is defined as R[i]. Both
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires March 2005 32
quantities are expressed in terms of discrete bandwidth units (and quantities are expressed in terms of discrete bandwidth units (and
thus, the Minimum LSP Bandwidth is of one bandwidth unit). thus, the Minimum LSP Bandwidth is of one bandwidth unit).
The knowledge of this information available per TE link can be The knowledge of this information available per TE link can be
exploited in order to optimize the usage of the resources allocated exploited in order to optimize the usage of the resources allocated
per TE link for shared recovery. If one refers to r[i] as the actual per TE link for shared recovery. If one refers to r[i] as the actual
bandwidth per TE link i (in terms of discrete bandwidth units) bandwidth per TE link i (in terms of discrete bandwidth units)
committed for shared recovery, then the following quantity must be committed for shared recovery, then the following quantity must be
maximized over the potential TE link candidates: maximized over the potential TE link candidates:
skipping to change at line 1769 skipping to change at line 1785
max_R[i] or for which r[i] = 0 are pruned during shared recovery max_R[i] or for which r[i] = 0 are pruned during shared recovery
path computation as well as TE links for which max_R[i] = r[i] which path computation as well as TE links for which max_R[i] = r[i] which
can simply not be shared. can simply not be shared.
More generally, one can draw the following mapping between the More generally, one can draw the following mapping between the
available bandwidth at the transport and control plane level: available bandwidth at the transport and control plane level:
- ---------- Max Reservable Bandwidth - ---------- Max Reservable Bandwidth
| ----- ^ | ----- ^
|R ----- | |R ----- |
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires October 2005 33
| ----- | | ----- |
- ----- |max_R - ----- |max_R
----- | ----- |
-------- TE link Capacity - ------ | - Maximum TE Link Bandwidth -------- TE link Capacity - ------ | - Maximum TE Link Bandwidth
----- |r ----- v ----- |r ----- v
----- <------ b ------> - ---------- Maximum LSP Bandwidth ----- <------ b ------> - ---------- Maximum LSP Bandwidth
----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- <--- Minimum LSP Bandwidth ----- ----- <--- Minimum LSP Bandwidth
-------- 0 ---------- 0 -------- 0 ---------- 0
Note that the above approach does not require the flooding of any Note that the above approach does not require the flooding of any
per LSP information or any detailed distribution of the bandwidth per LSP information or any detailed distribution of the bandwidth
allocation per component link or individual ports or even any per- allocation per component link or individual ports or even any per-
priority shareable recovery bandwidth information (using a dedicated priority shareable recovery bandwidth information (using a dedicated
sub-TLV). The latter would provide the same capability than the sub-TLV). The latter would provide the same capability than the
already defined Maximum LSP bandwidth per-priority information. Such already defined Maximum LSP bandwidth per-priority information. Such
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires March 2005 33
approach is referred to as a Partial (or Aggregated) Information approach is referred to as a Partial (or Aggregated) Information
Routing as described for instance in [KODIALAM1] and [KODIALAM2]. Routing as described for instance in [KODIALAM1] and [KODIALAM2].
They show that the difference obtained with a Full (or Complete) They show that the difference obtained with a Full (or Complete)
Information Routing approach (where for the whole set of working and Information Routing approach (where for the whole set of working and
recovery LSPs, the amount of bandwidth units they use per-link is recovery LSPs, the amount of bandwidth units they use per-link is
known at each node and for each link) is clearly negligible. The known at each node and for each link) is clearly negligible. The
latter approach is detailed in [GLI], for instance. Note also that latter approach is detailed in [GLI], for instance. Note also that
both approaches rely on the deterministic knowledge (at different both approaches rely on the deterministic knowledge (at different
degrees) of the network topology and resource usage status. degrees) of the network topology and resource usage status.
skipping to change at line 1823 skipping to change at line 1839
single SRLG failure. These methods enable for the sharing of single SRLG failure. These methods enable for the sharing of
recovery resources between two (or more) recovery LSPs if their recovery resources between two (or more) recovery LSPs if their
respective working LSPs are mutually disjoint with respect to link, respective working LSPs are mutually disjoint with respect to link,
node and SRLGs. A single failure then does not simultaneously node and SRLGs. A single failure then does not simultaneously
disrupt several (or at least two) working LSPs. disrupt several (or at least two) working LSPs.
For instance, [BOUILLET] shows that the Partial Information Routing For instance, [BOUILLET] shows that the Partial Information Routing
approach can be extended to cover recovery resource shareability approach can be extended to cover recovery resource shareability
with respect to SRLG recoverability (i.e. the number of times each with respect to SRLG recoverability (i.e. the number of times each
SRLG is recoverable). By flooding this aggregated information per TE SRLG is recoverable). By flooding this aggregated information per TE
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires October 2005 34
link, path computation and selection of SRLG-diverse recovery LSPs link, path computation and selection of SRLG-diverse recovery LSPs
can be optimized with respect to the sharing of recovery resource can be optimized with respect to the sharing of recovery resource
reserved on each TE link giving a performance difference of less reserved on each TE link giving a performance difference of less
than 5% (and so negligible) compared to the corresponding Full than 5% (and so negligible) compared to the corresponding Full
Information Flooding approach (see [GLI]). Information Flooding approach (see [GLI]).
For this purpose, additional extensions to [GMPLS-RTG] in support of For this purpose, additional extensions to [GMPLS-RTG] in support of
path computation for shared mesh recovery have been often considered path computation for shared mesh recovery have been often considered
in the literature. TE link attributes would include, among other, in the literature. TE link attributes would include, among other,
the current number of recovery LSPs sharing the recovery resources the current number of recovery LSPs sharing the recovery resources
reserved on the TE link and the current number of SRLGs recoverable reserved on the TE link and the current number of SRLGs recoverable
by this amount of (shared) recovery resources reserved on the TE by this amount of (shared) recovery resources reserved on the TE
link. The latter is equivalent to the current number of SRLGs that link. The latter is equivalent to the current number of SRLGs that
the recovery LSPs sharing the recovery resource reserved on the TE the recovery LSPs sharing the recovery resource reserved on the TE
link shall recover. Then, if explicit SRLG recoverability is link shall recover. Then, if explicit SRLG recoverability is
considered an additional TE link attribute including the explicit considered an additional TE link attribute including the explicit
list of SRLGs recoverable by the shared recovery resource reserved list of SRLGs recoverable by the shared recovery resource reserved
on the TE link and their respective shareable recovery bandwidth. on the TE link and their respective shareable recovery bandwidth.
The latter information is equivalent to the shareable recovery The latter information is equivalent to the shareable recovery
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires March 2005 34
bandwidth per SRLG (or per group of SRLGs) which implies to consider bandwidth per SRLG (or per group of SRLGs) which implies to consider
a decreasing amount of shareable bandwidth and SRLG list over time. a decreasing amount of shareable bandwidth and SRLG list over time.
Compared to the case of recovery resource sharing only (regardless Compared to the case of recovery resource sharing only (regardless
of SRLG recoverability, as described in Section 8.4.1), this of SRLG recoverability, as described in Section 8.4.1), this
additional TE link attributes would potentially deliver better path additional TE link attributes would potentially deliver better path
computation and selection (at distinct ingress node) for shared mesh computation and selection (at distinct ingress node) for shared mesh
recovery purposes. However, due to the lack of results of evidence recovery purposes. However, due to the lack of results of evidence
for better efficiency and due to the complexity that such extensions for better efficiency and due to the complexity that such extensions
would generate, they are not further considered in the scope of the would generate, they are not further considered in the scope of the
skipping to change at line 1878 skipping to change at line 1894
A ------ C ====== D A ------ C ====== D
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| B | | B |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
------- E ------ F ------- E ------ F
Node A creates a working LSP to D (A-C-D), B creates simultaneously Node A creates a working LSP to D (A-C-D), B creates simultaneously
a working LSP to D (B-C-D) and a recovery LSP (B-E-F-D) to the same a working LSP to D (B-C-D) and a recovery LSP (B-E-F-D) to the same
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires October 2005 35
destination. Then, A decides to create a recovery LSP to D (A-E-F- destination. Then, A decides to create a recovery LSP to D (A-E-F-
D), but since the C-D span carries both working LSPs, node E should D), but since the C-D span carries both working LSPs, node E should
either assign a dedicated resource for this recovery LSP or reject either assign a dedicated resource for this recovery LSP or reject
this request if the C-D span has already reached its maximum this request if the C-D span has already reached its maximum
recovery bandwidth sharing ratio. Otherwise, in the latter case, C-D recovery bandwidth sharing ratio. Otherwise, in the latter case, C-D
span failure would imply that one of the working LSP would not be span failure would imply that one of the working LSP would not be
recoverable. recoverable.
Consequently, node E must have the required information to perform Consequently, node E must have the required information to perform
admission control for the recovery LSP requests it processes admission control for the recovery LSP requests it processes
(implying for instance, that the path followed by the working LSP is (implying for instance, that the path followed by the working LSP is
carried with the corresponding recovery LSP request). If node E can carried with the corresponding recovery LSP request). If node E can
guarantee that the working LSPs (A-C-D and B-C-D) are SRLG disjoint guarantee that the working LSPs (A-C-D and B-C-D) are SRLG disjoint
over the C-D span, it may securely accept the incoming recovery LSP over the C-D span, it may securely accept the incoming recovery LSP
request and assign to the recovery LSPs (A-E-F-D and B-E-F-D) the request and assign to the recovery LSPs (A-E-F-D and B-E-F-D) the
same resources on the link E-F. This, if the link E-F has not yet same resources on the link E-F. This, if the link E-F has not yet
reached its maximum recovery bandwidth sharing ratio. In this reached its maximum recovery bandwidth sharing ratio. In this
example, one assumes that the node failure probability is negligible example, one assumes that the node failure probability is negligible
compared to the link failure probability. compared to the link failure probability.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires March 2005 35
To achieve this, the path followed by the working LSP is transported To achieve this, the path followed by the working LSP is transported
with the recovery LSP request and examined at each upstream node of with the recovery LSP request and examined at each upstream node of
potentially shareable links. Admission control is performed using potentially shareable links. Admission control is performed using
the interface identifiers (included in the path) to retrieve in the the interface identifiers (included in the path) to retrieve in the
TE DataBase the list of SRLG Ids associated to each of the working TE DataBase the list of SRLG Ids associated to each of the working
LSP links. If the working LSPs (A-C-D and B-C-D) have one or more LSP links. If the working LSPs (A-C-D and B-C-D) have one or more
link or SRLG id in common (in this example, one or more SRLG id in link or SRLG id in common (in this example, one or more SRLG id in
common over the span C-D) node E should not assign the same resource common over the span C-D) node E should not assign the same resource
over link E-F to the recovery LSPs (A-E-F-D and B-E-F-D). Otherwise, over link E-F to the recovery LSPs (A-E-F-D and B-E-F-D). Otherwise,
one of these working LSPs would not be recoverable in case of C-D one of these working LSPs would not be recoverable in case of C-D
span failure. span failure.
There are some issues related to this method, the major one being There are some issues related to this method, the major one being
the number of SRLG Ids that a single link can cover (more than 100, the number of SRLG Ids that a single link can cover (more than 100,
in complex environments). Moreover, when using link bundles, this in complex environments). Moreover, when using link bundles, this
approach may generate the rejection of some recovery LSP requests. approach may generate the rejection of some recovery LSP requests.
This occurs when the SRLG sub-TLV corresponding to a link bundle This occurs when the SRLG sub-TLV corresponding to a link bundle
includes the union of the SRLG id list of all the component links includes the union of the SRLG id list of all the component links
belonging to this bundle (see [GMPLS-RTG] and [MPLS-BUNDLE]). belonging to this bundle (see [GMPLS-RTG] and [BUNDLE]).
In order to overcome this specific issue, an additional mechanism In order to overcome this specific issue, an additional mechanism
may consist of querying the nodes where such an information would be may consist of querying the nodes where such an information would be
available (in this case, node E would query C). The main drawback of available (in this case, node E would query C). The main drawback of
this method is that, in addition to the dedicated mechanism(s) it this method is that, in addition to the dedicated mechanism(s) it
requires, it may become complex when several common nodes are requires, it may become complex when several common nodes are
traversed by the working LSPs. Therefore, when using link bundles, traversed by the working LSPs. Therefore, when using link bundles,
solving this issue is tightly related to the sequence of the solving this issue is tightly related to the sequence of the
recovery operations. Per component flooding of SRLG identifiers recovery operations. Per component flooding of SRLG identifiers
would deeply impact the scalability of the link state routing would deeply impact the scalability of the link state routing
protocol. Therefore, one may rely on the usage of an on-line protocol. Therefore, one may rely on the usage of an on-line
accessible network management system. accessible network management system.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires October 2005 36
9. Summary and Conclusions 9. Summary and Conclusions
The following table summarizes the different recovery types and The following table summarizes the different recovery types and
schemes analyzed throughout this document. schemes analyzed throughout this document.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------
| Path Search (computation and selection) | Path Search (computation and selection)
-------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------
| Pre-planned (a) | Dynamic (b) | Pre-planned (a) | Dynamic (b)
-------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------
| | faster recovery | Does not apply | | faster recovery | Does not apply
| | less flexible | | | less flexible |
| 1 | less robust | | 1 | less robust |
| | most resource consuming | | | most resource consuming |
Path | | | Path | | |
Setup ------------------------------------------------------------ Setup ------------------------------------------------------------
| | relatively fast recovery | Does not apply | | relatively fast recovery | Does not apply
| | relatively flexible | | | relatively flexible |
| 2 | relatively robust | | 2 | relatively robust |
| | resource consumption | | | resource consumption |
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires March 2005 36
| | depends on sharing degree | | | depends on sharing degree |
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------
| | relatively fast recovery | less faster (computation) | | relatively fast recovery | less faster (computation)
| | more flexible | most flexible | | more flexible | most flexible
| 3 | relatively robust | most robust | 3 | relatively robust | most robust
| | less resource consuming | least resource consuming | | less resource consuming | least resource consuming
| | depends on sharing degree | | | depends on sharing degree |
-------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------
1a. Recovery LSP setup (before failure occurrence) with resource 1a. Recovery LSP setup (before failure occurrence) with resource
skipping to change at line 1985 skipping to change at line 2002
selection. This implies recovery LSP activation and resource selection. This implies recovery LSP activation and resource
(i.e. label) selection after failure occurrence. (i.e. label) selection after failure occurrence.
3b. Recovery LSP setup after failure occurrence is referred to as 3b. Recovery LSP setup after failure occurrence is referred to as
to as LSP re-routing, which is full when recovery LSP path to as LSP re-routing, which is full when recovery LSP path
computation occurs after failure occurrence. computation occurs after failure occurrence.
The term pre-planned refers thus to recovery LSP path pre- The term pre-planned refers thus to recovery LSP path pre-
computation, signaling (reservation), and a priori resource computation, signaling (reservation), and a priori resource
selection (optional), but not cross-connection. Also, the shared- selection (optional), but not cross-connection. Also, the shared-
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires October 2005 37
mesh recovery scheme can be viewed as a particular case of 2a) and mesh recovery scheme can be viewed as a particular case of 2a) and
3a) using the additional constraint described in Section 8.4.3. 3a) using the additional constraint described in Section 8.4.3.
The implementation of these recovery mechanisms requires only The implementation of these recovery mechanisms requires only
considering extensions to GMPLS signalling protocols (i.e. [RFC3471] considering extensions to GMPLS signalling protocols (i.e. [RFC3471]
and [RFC3473]). These GMPLS signalling extensions should mainly and [RFC3473]). These GMPLS signalling extensions should mainly
focus in delivering (1) recovery LSP pre-provisioning for the cases focus in delivering (1) recovery LSP pre-provisioning for the cases
1a, 2a and 3a, (2) LSP failure notification, (3) recovery LSP 1a, 2a and 3a, (2) LSP failure notification, (3) recovery LSP
switching action(s), and (4) reversion mechanisms. switching action(s), and (4) reversion mechanisms.
Moreover, the present analysis (see Section 8) shows that no GMPLS Moreover, the present analysis (see Section 8) shows that no GMPLS
routing extensions are expected to efficiently implement any of routing extensions are expected to efficiently implement any of
these recovery types and schemes. these recovery types and schemes.
10. Security Considerations 10. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce any additional security issue or This document does not introduce any additional security issue or
imply any specific security consideration from [GMPLS-ARCH] to the imply any specific security consideration from [RFC3945] to the
current RSVP-TE GMPLS signaling, routing protocols (OSPF-TE, IS-IS- current RSVP-TE GMPLS signaling, routing protocols (OSPF-TE, IS-IS-
TE) or network management protocols (SNMP). TE) or network management protocols.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires March 2005 37
However, the authorization of requests for resources by GMPLS- However, the authorization of requests for resources by GMPLS-
capable nodes should determining whether a given party, presumable capable nodes should determining whether a given party, presumable
already authenticated, has a right to access the requested already authenticated, has a right to access the requested
resources. This determination is typically a matter of local policy resources. This determination is typically a matter of local policy
control, for example by setting limits on the total bandwidth made control, for example by setting limits on the total bandwidth made
available to some party in the presence of resource contention. Such available to some party in the presence of resource contention. Such
policies may become quite complex as the number of users, types of policies may become quite complex as the number of users, types of
resources and sophistication of authorization rules increases. This resources and sophistication of authorization rules increases. This
is particularly the case for recovery schemes that assume pre- is particularly the case for recovery schemes that assume pre-
planned sharing of recovery resources, or contention for resources planned sharing of recovery resources, or contention for resources
in case of dynamic re-routing. in case of dynamic re-routing.
Therefore, control elements should match them against the local Therefore, control elements should match them against the local
authorization policy. These control elements must be capable of authorization policy. These control elements must be capable of
making decisions based on the identity of the requester, as verified making decisions based on the identity of the requester, as verified
cryptographically and/or topologically. cryptographically and/or topologically.
11. Acknowledgments 11. IANA Considerations
This document defines no new code points and requires no action by
IANA.
12. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Fabrice Poppe (Alcatel) and Bart The authors would like to thank Fabrice Poppe (Alcatel) and Bart
Rousseau (Alcatel) for their revision effort, Richard Rabbat Rousseau (Alcatel) for their revision effort, Richard Rabbat
(Fujitsu Labs), David Griffith (NIST) and Lyndon Ong (Ciena) for (Fujitsu Labs), David Griffith (NIST) and Lyndon Ong (Ciena) for
their useful comments. their useful comments.
Thanks also to Adrian Farrel for the thorough review of the Thanks also to Adrian Farrel for the thorough review of the
document. document.
12. References D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires October 2005 38
12.1 Normative References 13. References
13.1 Normative References
[BUNDLE] K.Kompella et al., "Link Bundling in MPLS Traffic [BUNDLE] K.Kompella et al., "Link Bundling in MPLS Traffic
Engineering," Work in progress, draft-ietf-mpls-bundle- Engineering," Work in progress, draft-ietf-mpls-bundle-
04.txt, August 2002. 06.txt, December 2004.
[GMPLS-ARCH] E.Mannie (Editor) et al., "Generalized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching Architecture," Work in progress, draft-
ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-07.txt, May 2003.
[GMPLS-RTG] K.Kompella (Editor) et al., "Routing Extensions in [GMPLS-RTG] K.Kompella (Editor) et al., "Routing Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching," Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching,"
Work in Progress, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing- Work in Progress, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-
09.txt, October 2003. 09.txt, October 2003.
[LMP] J.P.Lang (Editor) et al., "Link Management Protocol [LMP] J.P.Lang (Editor) et al., "Link Management Protocol
(LMP)," Work in progress, draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-10.txt, (LMP)," Work in progress, draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-10.txt,
October 2003. October 2003.
[LMP-WDM] A.Fredette and J.P.Lang (Editors), "Link Management [LMP-WDM] A.Fredette and J.P.Lang (Editors), "Link Management
Protocol (LMP) for Dense Wavelength Division Protocol (LMP) for Dense Wavelength Division
Multiplexing (DWDM) Optical Line Systems," Work in Multiplexing (DWDM) Optical Line Systems," Work in
progress, draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-wdm-03.txt, October progress, draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-wdm-03.txt, October
2003. 2003.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires March 2005 38
[RFC2026] S.Bradner, "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision [RFC2026] S.Bradner, "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3," BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. 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.
[RFC3471] L.Berger (Editor) et al., "Generalized Multi-Protocol [RFC3471] L.Berger (Editor) et al., "Generalized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional
Description," RFC 3471, January 2003. Description," RFC 3471, January 2003.
skipping to change at line 2083 skipping to change at line 2103
Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions," RFC Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions," RFC
3473, January 2003. 3473, January 2003.
[RFC3667] S.Bradner, "IETF Rights in Contributions", BCP 78, [RFC3667] S.Bradner, "IETF Rights in Contributions", BCP 78,
RFC 3667, February 2004. RFC 3667, February 2004.
[RFC3668] S.Bradner, Ed., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF [RFC3668] S.Bradner, Ed., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3668, February 2004. Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3668, February 2004.
[RFC3945] E.Mannie (Editor) et al., "Generalized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching Architecture," RFC 3945, October 2004.
[TERM] E.Mannie and D.Papadimitriou (Editors), "Recovery [TERM] E.Mannie and D.Papadimitriou (Editors), "Recovery
(Protection and Restoration) Terminology for (Protection and Restoration) Terminology for
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)," Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS),"
Work in progress, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery- Work in progress, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-
terminology-05.txt, October 2004. terminology-06.txt, April 2005.
12.2 Informative References D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires October 2005 39
13.2 Informative References
[BOUILLET] E.Bouillet et al., "Stochastic Approaches to Compute [BOUILLET] E.Bouillet et al., "Stochastic Approaches to Compute
Shared Meshed Restored Lightpaths in Optical Network Shared Meshed Restored Lightpaths in Optical Network
Architectures," IEEE Infocom 2002, New York City, June Architectures," IEEE Infocom 2002, New York City, June
2002. 2002.
[DEMEESTER] P.Demeester et al., "Resilience in Multilayer [DEMEESTER] P.Demeester et al., "Resilience in Multilayer
Networks," IEEE Communications Magazine, Vol. 37, No. Networks," IEEE Communications Magazine, Vol. 37, No.
8, pp. 70-76, August 1998. 8, pp. 70-76, August 1998.
skipping to change at line 2114 skipping to change at line 2139
[IPO-IMP] J.Strand and A.Chiu, "Impairments and Other Constraints [IPO-IMP] J.Strand and A.Chiu, "Impairments and Other Constraints
On Optical Layer Routing," Work in Progress, draft- On Optical Layer Routing," Work in Progress, draft-
ietf-ipo-impairments-05.txt, May 2003. ietf-ipo-impairments-05.txt, May 2003.
[KODIALAM1] M.Kodialam and T.V.Lakshman, "Restorable Dynamic [KODIALAM1] M.Kodialam and T.V.Lakshman, "Restorable Dynamic
Quality of Service Routing," IEEE Communications Quality of Service Routing," IEEE Communications
Magazine, pp. 72-81, June 2002. Magazine, pp. 72-81, June 2002.
[KODIALAM2] M.Kodialam and T.V.Lakshman, "Dynamic Routing of [KODIALAM2] M.Kodialam and T.V.Lakshman, "Dynamic Routing of
Restorable Bandwidth-Guaranteed Tunnels using Restorable Bandwidth-Guaranteed Tunnels using
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires March 2005 39
Aggregated Network Resource Usage Information," IEEE/ Aggregated Network Resource Usage Information," IEEE/
ACM Transactions on Networking, pp. 399-410, June 2003. ACM Transactions on Networking, pp. 399-410, June 2003.
[MANCHESTER] J.Manchester, P.Bonenfant and C.Newton, "The Evolution [MANCHESTER] J.Manchester, P.Bonenfant and C.Newton, "The Evolution
of Transport Network Survivability," IEEE of Transport Network Survivability," IEEE
Communications Magazine, August 1999. Communications Magazine, August 1999.
[RFC3386] W.Lai, D.McDysan, J.Boyle, et al., "Network Hierarchy [RFC3386] W.Lai, D.McDysan, J.Boyle, et al., "Network Hierarchy
and Multi-layer Survivability," RFC 3386, November 2002 and Multi-layer Survivability," RFC 3386, November 2002
skipping to change at line 2143 skipping to change at line 2166
[WANG] J.Wang, L.Sahasrabuddhe, and B.Mukherjee, "Path vs. [WANG] J.Wang, L.Sahasrabuddhe, and B.Mukherjee, "Path vs.
Subpath vs. Link Restoration for Fault Management in Subpath vs. Link Restoration for Fault Management in
IP-over-WDM Networks: Performance Comparisons Using IP-over-WDM Networks: Performance Comparisons Using
GMPLS Control Signaling," IEEE Communications Magazine, GMPLS Control Signaling," IEEE Communications Magazine,
pp. 80-87, November 2002. pp. 80-87, November 2002.
For information on the availability of the following documents, For information on the availability of the following documents,
please see http://www.itu.int please see http://www.itu.int
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires October 2005 40
[G.707] ITU-T, "Network Node Interface for the Synchronous [G.707] ITU-T, "Network Node Interface for the Synchronous
Digital Hierarchy (SDH)," Recommendation G.707, October Digital Hierarchy (SDH)," Recommendation G.707, October
2000. 2000.
[G.709] ITU-T, "Network Node Interface for the Optical [G.709] ITU-T, "Network Node Interface for the Optical
Transport Network (OTN)," Recommendation G.709, Transport Network (OTN)," Recommendation G.709,
February 2001 (and Amendment n1, October 2001). February 2001 (and Amendment no.1, October 2001).
[G.783] ITU-T, "Characteristics of Synchronous Digital [G.783] ITU-T, "Characteristics of Synchronous Digital
Hierarchy (SDH) Equipment Functional Blocks," Hierarchy (SDH) Equipment Functional Blocks,"
Recommendation G.783, October 2000. Recommendation G.783, October 2000.
[G.806] ITU-T, "Characteristics of Transport Equipment - [G.806] ITU-T, "Characteristics of Transport Equipment -
Description Methodology and Generic Functionality", Description Methodology and Generic Functionality",
Recommendation G.806, October 2000. Recommendation G.806, October 2000.
[G.808.1] ITU-T, "Generic Protection Switching - Linear trail and [G.808.1] ITU-T, "Generic Protection Switching - Linear trail and
Subnetwork Protection," Recommendation G.808.1, Subnetwork Protection," Recommendation G.808.1,
December 2003. December 2003.
[G.841] ITU-T, "Types and Characteristics of SDH Network [G.841] ITU-T, "Types and Characteristics of SDH Network
Protection Architectures," Recommendation G.841, Protection Architectures," Recommendation G.841,
October 1998. October 1998.
[G.842] ITU-T, "Interworking of SDH network protection [G.842] ITU-T, "Interworking of SDH network protection
architectures," Recommendation G.842, October 1998. architectures," Recommendation G.842, October 1998.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires March 2005 40 14. Editor's Addresses
13. Editor's Addresses
Eric Mannie Eric Mannie
EMail: eric_mannie@hotmail.com EMail: eric_mannie@hotmail.com
Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel) Dimitri Papadimitriou
Alcatel
Francis Wellesplein, 1 Francis Wellesplein, 1
B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
Phone: +32 3 240-8491 Phone: +32 3 240-8491
EMail: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be EMail: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires March 2005 41 D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires October 2005 41
Intellectual Property Statement Intellectual Property Statement
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 described to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described
in this document or the extent to which any license under such in this document or the extent to which any license under such
rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that
it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights.
Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC
skipping to change at line 2221 skipping to change at line 2244
This document and the information contained herein are provided on This document and the information contained herein are provided on
an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE
INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). 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.
Acknowledgment Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society. Internet Society.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires March 2005 42 D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires October 2005 42
 End of changes. 

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