draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability-13.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability-14.txt 
Network Working Group H. Long, M. Ye Network Working Group H. Long, M. Ye
Internet Draft Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd Internet Draft Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
Intended status: Standards Track G. Mirsky Intended status: Standards Track G. Mirsky
ZTE ZTE
A.D'Alessandro A.D'Alessandro
Telecom Italia S.p.A Telecom Italia S.p.A
H. Shah H. Shah
Ciena Ciena
Expires: July 2019 January 17, 2019 Expires: September 2019 March 6, 2019
Ethernet Traffic Parameters with Availability Information Ethernet Traffic Parameters with Availability Information
draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability-13.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability-14.txt
Abstract Abstract
A packet switching network may contain links with variable A packet switching network may contain links with variable
bandwidth, e.g., copper, radio, etc. The bandwidth of such links is bandwidth, e.g., copper, radio, etc. The bandwidth of such links is
sensitive to external environment (e.g., climate). Availability is sensitive to external environment (e.g., climate). Availability is
typically used for describing these links when during network typically used for describing these links when doing network
planning. This document introduces an optional Availability TLV in planning. This document introduces an optional Availability TLV in
Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineer (RSVP-TE) Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineer (RSVP-TE)
signaling. This extension can be used to set up a Generalized Multi- signaling. This extension can be used to set up a Generalized Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) using the Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) in
Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object. conjunction with the Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts. Drafts.
skipping to change at page 2, line 4 skipping to change at page 2, line 4
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." reference 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
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 17, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 6, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 27 skipping to change at page 2, line 27
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................ 3 1. Introduction ................................................ 3
2. Overview .................................................... 4 2. Overview .................................................... 4
3. Extension to RSVP-TE Signaling............................... 5 3. Extension to RSVP-TE Signaling............................... 5
3.1. Availability TLV........................................ 5 3.1. Availability TLV........................................ 5
3.2. Signaling Process....................................... 5 3.2. Signaling Process....................................... 6
4. Security Considerations...................................... 6 4. Security Considerations...................................... 7
5. IANA Considerations ......................................... 6 5. IANA Considerations ......................................... 7
5.1 Ethernet Sender TSpec TLVs ............................. 7 5.1 Ethernet Sender TSpec TLVs ............................. 7
6. References .................................................. 7 6. References .................................................. 8
6.1. Normative References.................................... 7 6.1. Normative References.................................... 8
6.2. Informative References.................................. 8 6.2. Informative References.................................. 8
7. Appendix: Bandwidth Availability Example..................... 8 7. Appendix: Bandwidth Availability Example..................... 9
8. Acknowledgments ............................................ 10 8. Acknowledgments ............................................ 10
Conventions used in this document 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", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
skipping to change at page 3, line 39 skipping to change at page 3, line 39
inherited from the bandwidth availability requirements of the inherited from the bandwidth availability requirements of the
services expected to be carried on the LSP. For example, voice services expected to be carried on the LSP. For example, voice
service usually needs "five nines" bandwidth availability, while service usually needs "five nines" bandwidth availability, while
non-real time services may adequately perform at four or three nines non-real time services may adequately perform at four or three nines
bandwidth availability. Since different service types may need bandwidth availability. Since different service types may need
different availabilities guarantees, multiple <availability, different availabilities guarantees, multiple <availability,
bandwidth> pairs may be required when signaling. bandwidth> pairs may be required when signaling.
If the bandwidth availability requirement is not specified in the If the bandwidth availability requirement is not specified in the
signaling message, the bandwidth will be reserved as the highest signaling message, the bandwidth will be reserved as the highest
bandwidth availability. For example, the bandwidth with 99.999% bandwidth availability. Suppose, for example, the bandwidth with
availability of a link is 100 Mbps; the bandwidth with 99.99% 99.999% availability of a link is 100 Mbps; the bandwidth with
availability is 200 Mbps. When a video application requests for 120 99.99% availability is 200 Mbps. When a video application requests
Mbps without bandwidth availability requirement, the system will for 120 Mbps without bandwidth availability requirement, the system
consider the request as 120 Mbps with 99.999% bandwidth will consider the request as 120 Mbps with 99.999% bandwidth
availability, while the available bandwidth with 99.999% bandwidth availability, while the available bandwidth with 99.999% bandwidth
availability is only 100 Mbps, therefore the LSP path cannot be set availability is only 100 Mbps, therefore the LSP path cannot be set
up. But, in fact, the video application doesn't need 99.999% up. But, in fact, the video application doesn't need 99.999%
bandwidth availability; 99.99% bandwidth availability is enough. In bandwidth availability; 99.99% bandwidth availability is enough. In
this case, the LSP could be set up if bandwidth availability is also this case, the LSP could be set up if bandwidth availability is also
specified in the signaling message. specified in the signaling message.
To fulfill LSP setup by signaling in these scenarios, this document To fulfill LSP setup by signaling in these scenarios, this document
specifies an Availability TLV. The Availability TLV can be specifies an Availability TLV. The Availability TLV can be
applicable to any kind of physical links with variable discrete applicable to any kind of physical links with variable discrete
skipping to change at page 5, line 17 skipping to change at page 5, line 17
3.1. Availability TLV 3.1. Availability TLV
An Availability TLV is defined as a TLV of the Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC An Availability TLV is defined as a TLV of the Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC
object [RFC6003] in this document. The Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object object [RFC6003] in this document. The Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object
MAY include more than one Availability TLV. The Availability TLV has MAY include more than one Availability TLV. The Availability TLV has
the following format: the following format:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Index | Reserved | | Index | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Availability | | Availability |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Availability TLV Figure 1: Availability TLV
Type (2 octets): 0x04
Length (2 octets): 0x0C. Indicates the length in bytes of the
whole TLV including the Type and Length fields, in this case 12
bytes.
Index (1 octet): Index (1 octet):
When the Availability TLV is included, it MUST be present along When the Availability TLV is included, it MUST be present along
with the Ethernet Bandwidth Profile TLV. If the bandwidth with the Ethernet Bandwidth Profile TLV. If the bandwidth
requirements in the multiple Ethernet Bandwidth Profile TLVs have requirements in the multiple Ethernet Bandwidth Profile TLVs have
different Availability requirements, multiple Availability TLVs different Availability requirements, multiple Availability TLVs
SHOULD be carried. In such a case, the Availability TLV has a one SHOULD be carried. In such a case, the Availability TLV has a one
to one correspondence with the Ethernet Bandwidth Profile TLV by to one correspondence with the Ethernet Bandwidth Profile TLV by
having the same value of Index field. If all the bandwidth having the same value of Index field. If all the bandwidth
requirements in the Ethernet Bandwidth Profile have the same requirements in the Ethernet Bandwidth Profile have the same
Availability requirement, one Availability TLV SHOULD be carried. Availability requirement, one Availability TLV SHOULD be carried.
In this case, the Index field is set to 0. In this case, the Index field is set to 0.
Reserved (3 octets): These bits SHOULD be set to zero when sent Reserved (3 octets): These bits SHOULD be set to zero when sent
and MUST be ignored when received. and MUST be ignored when received.
Availability (4 octets): a 32-bit floating number describes the Availability (4 octets): a 32-bit floating point number describes
decimal value of availability requirement for this bandwidth the decimal value of availability requirement for this bandwidth
request. The value MUST be less than 1and is usually expressed in request. The value MUST be less than 1and is usually expressed in
the value of 0.99/0.999/0.9999/0.99999. the value of 0.99/0.999/0.9999/0.99999.
3.2. Signaling Process 3.2. Signaling Process
The source node initiates a PATH message which may carry a number of The source node initiates a PATH message which may carry a number of
bandwidth requests, including one or more Ethernet Bandwidth Profile bandwidth requests, including one or more Ethernet Bandwidth Profile
TLVs and one or more Availability TLVs. Each Ethernet Bandwidth TLVs and one or more Availability TLVs. Each Ethernet Bandwidth
Profile TLV corresponds to an availability parameter in the Profile TLV corresponds to an availability parameter in the
Availability TLV. associated Availability TLV.
The intermediate and destination nodes check whether they can The intermediate and destination nodes check whether they can
satisfy the bandwidth requirements by comparing each bandwidth satisfy the bandwidth requirements by comparing each bandwidth
request inside the SENDER_TSPEC objects with the remaining link sub- request inside the SENDER_TSPEC objects with the remaining link sub-
bandwidth resource with respective availability guarantee on the bandwidth resource with respective availability guarantee on the
local link when the PATH message is received. local link when the PATH message is received.
o When all <bandwidth, availability> requirement requests can o When all <bandwidth, availability> requirement requests can
be satisfied (the requested bandwidth under each availability be satisfied (the requested bandwidth under each availability
parameter is smaller than or equal to the remaining bandwidth parameter is smaller than or equal to the remaining bandwidth
under the corresponding availability parameter on its local under the corresponding availability parameter on its local
link), it SHOULD reserve the bandwidth resource from each link), the node SHOULD reserve the bandwidth resource from each
remaining sub-bandwidth portion on its local link to set up remaining sub-bandwidth portion on its local link to set up
this LSP. Optionally, the higher availability bandwidth can be this LSP. Optionally, a higher availability bandwidth can be
allocated to lower availability request when the lower allocated to lower availability request when the lower
availability bandwidth cannot satisfy the request. availability bandwidth cannot satisfy the request.
o When at least one <bandwidth, availability> requirement o When at least one <bandwidth, availability> requirement
request cannot be satisfied, it SHOULD generate PathErr message request cannot be satisfied, the node SHOULD generate PathErr
with the error code "Admission Control Error" and the error message with the error code "Admission Control Error" and the
value "Requested Bandwidth Unavailable" (see [RFC2205]). error value "Requested Bandwidth Unavailable" (see [RFC2205]).
When two LSPs request bandwidth with the same availability When two LSPs request bandwidth with the same availability
requirement, contention MUST be resolved by comparing the node IDs, requirement, contention MUST be resolved by comparing the node IDs,
with the LSP with the higher node ID being assigned the reservation. with the LSP with the higher node ID being assigned the reservation.
This is consistent with general contention resolution mechanism This is consistent with general contention resolution mechanism
provided in section 3.2 of [RFC3473]. provided in section 3.2 of [RFC3473].
When a node does not support the Availability TLV, it SHOULD When a node does not support the Availability TLV, the node SHOULD
generate PathErr message with the error code "Extended Class-Type generate a PathErr message with the error code "Extended Class-Type
Error" and the error value "Class-Type mismatch" (see [RFC2205]). Error" and the error value "Class-Type mismatch" (see [RFC2205]).
When a node receives Availability TLVs which mixed of zero index and
non-zero index, the message MAY be ignored and SHOULD NOT be
propagated. When a node receives Availability TLVs (non-zero index)
with no matching index value among the bandwidth-TLVs, the message
MAY be ignored and SHOULD NOT be propagated. When a node receives
several <bandwidth, availability> pairs, but there're are extra
bandwidth-TLVs without matching index Availability-TLV, the extra
bandwidth-TLVs MAY be ignored and SHOULD NOT be propagated.
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce any new security considerations to This document defines an Availability TLV in RSVP-TE signaling used
the existing RSVP-TE signaling protocol. [RFC5920] provides an in GMPLS network. [RFC3945] notes that authentication in GMPLS
overview of security vulnerabilities and protection mechanisms for systems may use the authentication mechanisms of the component
the GMPLS control plane. protocols. [RFC5920] provides an overview of security
vulnerabilities and protection mechanisms for the GMPLS control
plane. Especially section 7.1.2 of [RFC5920] discuss the control-
plane protection with RSVP-TE by using general RSVP security tools,
limiting the impact of an attack on control-plane resources, and
authentication for RSVP messages. Moreover, the GMPLS network is
often considered to be a closed network such that insertion,
modification, or inspection of packets by an outside party is not
possible.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
IANA maintains registries and sub-registries for RSVP-TE used by IANA maintains registries and sub-registries for RSVP-TE used by
GMPLS. IANA is requested to make allocations from these registries GMPLS. IANA is requested to make allocations from these registries
as set out in the following sections. as set out in the following sections.
5.1 Ethernet Sender TSpec TLVs 5.1 Ethernet Sender TSpec TLVs
IANA maintains a registry of GMPLS parameters called "Generalized IANA maintains a registry of GMPLS parameters called "Generalized
skipping to change at page 8, line 14 skipping to change at page 8, line 36
6.2. Informative References 6.2. Informative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC8126] Cotton,M. and Leiba,B., and Narten T., "Guidelines for [RFC8126] Cotton,M. and Leiba,B., and Narten T., "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 8126, Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 8126,
June 2017. June 2017.
[RFC3945] Mannie, E., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004.
[RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS [RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010. Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
[G.827] ITU-T Recommendation, "Availability performance parameters [G.827] ITU-T Recommendation, "Availability performance parameters
and objectives for end-to-end international constant bit- and objectives for end-to-end international constant bit-
rate digital paths", September, 2003. rate digital paths", September 2003.
[F.1703] ITU-R Recommendation, "Availability objectives for real [F.1703] ITU-R Recommendation, "Availability objectives for real
digital fixed wireless links used in 27 500 km digital fixed wireless links used in 27 500 km
hypothetical reference paths and connections", January, hypothetical reference paths and connections", January
2005. 2005.
[P.530] ITU-R Recommendation," Propagation data and prediction [P.530] ITU-R Recommendation," Propagation data and prediction
methods required for the design of terrestrial line-of- methods required for the design of terrestrial line-of-
sight systems", February, 2012 sight systems", February 2012
[EN 302 217] ETSI standard, "Fixed Radio Systems; Characteristics [EN 302 217] ETSI standard, "Fixed Radio Systems; Characteristics
and requirements for point-to-point equipment and and requirements for point-to-point equipment and
antennas", April, 2009 antennas", April 2009
[RFC8330] H., Long, M., Ye, Mirsky, G., Alessandro, A., Shah, H., [RFC8330] H., Long, M., Ye, Mirsky, G., Alessandro, A., Shah, H.,
"OSPF Traffic Engineering (OSPF-TE) Link Availability "OSPF Traffic Engineering (OSPF-TE) Link Availability
Extension for Links with Variable Discrete Bandwidth", Extension for Links with Variable Discrete Bandwidth",
RFC8330, February, 2018 RFC8330, February 2018
7. Appendix: Bandwidth Availability Example 7. Appendix: Bandwidth Availability Example
In a mobile backhaul network, microwave links are very popular for In a mobile backhaul network, microwave links are very popular for
providing connections of last hops. In case of heavy rain providing connections of last hops. In case of heavy rain
conditions, to maintain the link connectivity, the microwave link conditions, to maintain the link connectivity, the microwave link
MAY lower the modulation level since demodulating to a lower MAY lower the modulation level since demodulating to a lower
modulation level provides for a lower Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) modulation level provides for a lower Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR)
requirement. This is called adaptive modulation technology [EN 302 requirement. This is called adaptive modulation technology [EN 302
217]. However, a lower modulation level also means lower link 217]. However, a lower modulation level also means lower link
 End of changes. 25 change blocks. 
36 lines changed or deleted 63 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/