CCAMP Working Group D. Caviglia Internet-Draft D. Ceccarelli Intended status: Standards Track D. Bramanti Expires: July 12, 2010 Ericsson D. Li Huawei Technologies S. Bardalai Fujitsu Network January 08, 2010 RSVP-TE Signaling Extension For Management Plane To Control Plane LSP Handover In A GMPLS Enabled Transport Network. draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-spc-rsvpte-ext-05 Abstract In a transport network scenario, where Data Plane connections are controlled either by a Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Control Plane (Soft Permanent Connections - SPC) or by a Management System (Permanent Connections - PC) may independently coexist, the ability of transforming an existing PC into a SPC and vice versa - without actually affecting Data Plane traffic being carried over it - is a requirement. The requirements for the conversion between permanent connections and switched connections in a GMPLS Network are defined in [RFC5493]. This memo describes an extension to GMPLS RSVP-TE signaling that enables the transfer of connection ownership between the Management and the Control Planes. Such a transfer is referred to as a Handover. This document defines all Handover related procedures. This includes the handling of failure conditions and subsequent reversion to original state. A basic premise of the extension is that the handover procedures must never impact an already established Data plane. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any Caviglia, et al. Expires July 12, 2010 [Page 1] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Ext for MP2CP LSP Handover January 2010 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on July 12, 2010. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the BSD License. Caviglia, et al. Expires July 12, 2010 [Page 2] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Ext for MP2CP LSP Handover January 2010 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. Dedication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1. MP to CP handover: LSP Ownership Transfer From Management Plane To Control Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.2. MP to CP Handover Procedure Failure Handling . . . . . . . 7 4.2.1. MP to CP Handover Failure - Path Failure . . . . . . . 7 4.2.1.1. MP to CP Handover Failure - Path message and Data Plane Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.2.1.2. MP to CP Handover Failure - Path message and Communication failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.2.2. MP to CP Handover Failure - Resv Error . . . . . . . . 9 4.2.2.1. MP to CP Handover Failure - Resv Error and Data Plane failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.2.2.2. MP to CP Handover Failure - Resv Error and Communication failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.2.2.3. MP to CP Handover Failure - Node Graceful Restart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.3. CP to MP handover : LSP Ownership Transfer From Control Plane To Management Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.4. CP to MP Handover Procedure Failure . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5. Minimum Information for MP to CP Handover . . . . . . . . . . 16 6. RSVP Message Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7. Objects Modification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7.1. Administrative Status Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7.2. Error Spec Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 13.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Caviglia, et al. Expires July 12, 2010 [Page 3] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Ext for MP2CP LSP Handover January 2010 1. Introduction In a typical traditional transport network scenario, Data Plane (DP) connections between two endpoints are controlled by means of a Network Management System (NMS) operating within Management Plane (MP). NMS/MP is the owner of such transport connections, being responsible of their set up, tear down and maintenance. The adoption of a Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) [RFC3945] Control Plane (CP) in a network that is already in service - controlled by NMS at MP level - introduces the need for a procedure able to coordinate a controlled handover of a data plane connection from MP to CP. In addition, the control handover in the opposite direction, from CP to MP should be possible as well. The procedures described in this memo can be applied to an LSP in any DP switching technology and any network architecture. This memo describes an extension to GMPLS RSVP-TE signaling that enables the handover of connection ownership between the Management and the Control Planes. All handover related procedures are defined below. This includes the handling of failure conditions and subsequent reversion to original state. A basic premise of the extension is that the handover procedures must never impact the exchange of user data on LSPs that are already established in the DP. 1.1. Dedication We would like to dedicate this work to our friend and colleague Dino Bramanti, who passed away at the early age of 38. Dino has been involved in this work since its beginning. 2. Terminology The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 3. Motivation The main motivation behind this work is the definition of a simple and very low impact procedure that satisfies the requirements defined in [RFC5493]. Such a procedure is aimed at giving the transport network operators the chance to handover the ownership of existing LSPs provisioned by NMS from the MP to the CP without disrupting user traffic flowing on them. Handover from MP to CP (i.e. when existing Caviglia, et al. Expires July 12, 2010 [Page 4] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Ext for MP2CP LSP Handover January 2010 DP connection ownership and control is passed from MP to CP) has been defined as a mandatory requirement, while the opposite operation, CP to MP handover, has been considered as a nice-to-have feature that can be seen as an emergency procedure to disable the CP and take the manual control of the LSP. For more details on requirements and motivations please refer to [RFC5493]. 4. Procedures The modification defined in this document refers only to the ADMIN_STATUS Object, that is, the message flow is left unmodified for both LSP set-up and deletion. Moreover a new Error Value is defined to identify the failure of a Handover procedure. The following paragraphs give detailed description of the "MP to CP handover" and "CP to MP handover" procedures, based on the usage a newly defined bit called H bit. The MP to CP handover procedures support two different methods for retrieving required information. The primary one consists of receiving the full Explicit Route Object (ERO) from the MP while the alternative one is described in Section 5. Please note that if the primary method is used the labels SHOULD be included in the ERO and for bidirectional LSPs both upstream and downstream labels SHOULD be included. Per Section 5.1.1. of [RFC3473], the labels are indicated on an output basis. As described, this means that the labels are used by the upstream node to create the LABEL_SET Object and, for bidirectional LSPs, UPSTREAM_LABEL Object used in the outgoing Path message. 4.1. MP to CP handover: LSP Ownership Transfer From Management Plane To Control Plane The MP to CP handover procedure MUST create an RSVP-TE session along the path of the LSP to be moved from MP to CP, associating it to the existing cross-connected resources owned by the MP (e.g. lambdas, time slots or reserved bandwidth) and at the same time transferring their ownership to the CP. The operator instructs the ingress node to handover control of the LSP from the MP to the CP. In this handover mode, it supplies the exact path of the LSP including any resource reservation and label information. The ingress MUST check that no corresponding Path state exists and that corresponding Data Plane state does exist. If there is an Caviglia, et al. Expires July 12, 2010 [Page 5] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Ext for MP2CP LSP Handover January 2010 error, this MUST be reported to the operator and further protocol action MUST NOT be taken. The ingress signals the LSP using a Path message with the H bit and R bit set in the ADMIN_STATUS object. In this mode of handover, the Path message also carries an ERO that includes Label subobjects indicating the labels used by the LSP at each hop. The ingress MUST start the Expiration timer (see Section 4.2.1.2 for expiration of this timer). Such timer SHOULD be configurable per LSP. Each LSR that receives a Path message with the H bit set checks to see whether there is any matching Path state. - If matching Path state is found with the H bit set, this is a Path refresh and should be treated accordingly [RFC3473]. - If matching Path state is found with the H bit clear, this is an error and MUST be treated according to the error case description in Section 4.2.xx - If no Path state is found, the LSR goes on to check whether there is any matching Data Plane state. - If no matching Data Plane state is found (including only partially matching Data Plane state), this is an error or a race condition. It MUST be handled according to the description in Section 4.2.xx - If matching Data Plane state is found, the LSR MUST save the Path state (including the set H bit), and MUST forward the Path message to the egress. The LSR MUST retain any MP state associated with the LSP at this point. An egress LSR MUST act as any other LSR, except that there is no downstream node to which to forward the Path message. If all checks are passed, the egress MUST respond with a Resv with the H bit set. A transit LSR MUST process each Resv according to the normal rules of [RFC3473]. When an ingress LSR receives a Resv message carrying the H bit set, it checks the Expiration Timer. - If the timer is not running, the Resv is treated as a refresh and no special action is taken [RFC3473]. - If the timer is running, the ingress MUST cancel the timer and MAY notify the operator that the first stage of handover is complete. The ingress MUST send a Path message that is no different from the previous message except that the H bit MUST be clear. The Path message with the H bit clear will travel the length of the Caviglia, et al. Expires July 12, 2010 [Page 6] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Ext for MP2CP LSP Handover January 2010 LSP and will result in the return of a Resv with the H bit clear according to normal processing [RFC3473]. As a result, the H bit will be cleared in the stored Path state at each transit LSR and at the egress LSR. Each LSR SHOULD release any associated MP state associated with the LSP when it receives the Path message with H bit clear. When the ingress receives a Resv with the H bit clear, the handover is completed. The ingress SHOULD notify the operator that the handover is correctly completed. 4.2. MP to CP Handover Procedure Failure Handling In the case of MP to CP Handover, two different failure scenarios can happen: Path Failure and Resv Failure. Moreover, each failure can be due to two different causes: DP failure or Communication Failure. In any case the LSP ownership MUST be immediately rolled back to the one previous to the handover procedure. A section for each combination will be analyzed in the following. 4.2.1. MP to CP Handover Failure - Path Failure 4.2.1.1. MP to CP Handover Failure - Path message and Data Plane Failure In this paragraph we will analyze the case where the handover procedure fails during the Path message processing. | Path | | | |--------------->| Path | | | |---------------X| | | | PathErr | | | PathErr |<---------------| | |<---------------| | | | | | | Ingress LER LSR A LSR B Egress LER MP2CP - Path Msg and DP Failure If an error occurs in an LSR or a LER, the last node that has received the Path message MUST send a PathErr message in the upstream direction and the handover procedure is aborted. Upon receiving the PathErr message the Path state of the node MUST be removed. The PathErr message SHOULD have the Path_State_Removed flag set. Nodes receiving a PathErr message MUST follow standard PathErr Caviglia, et al. Expires July 12, 2010 [Page 7] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Ext for MP2CP LSP Handover January 2010 message processing with the exception that when their local state indicates that a Handover is in progress (based on the H bit in the Path message) the associated DP resources MUST NOT be impacted during such processing and the LSR MUST revert the LSP ownership to the MP. 4.2.1.2. MP to CP Handover Failure - Path message and Communication failure Other possible scenarios are shown in the following pictures and are based on the inability to reach a node along the path of the LSP. The below scenario postulates the usage of a reliable message delivery based on the mechanism defined in [RFC2961]. | Path | | | |--------------->| Path | | | |---------------X| | | |---------------X| | | | ... | | | |---------------X| | | | | | Ingress LER LSR A LSR B Egress LER MP2CP - Path Msg and Communication Failure (reliable delivery) The Path message sent from LSR A towards LSR B is lost or does not reach the destination for any reason. As a reliable delivery mechanism is implemented, LSR A retransmits the Path message for a configurable number of times and if no ack is received the handover procedure will be aborted (via the Expiration timer). In the next scenario RSVP-TE messages are sent without reliable message delivery, that is, no [RFC2961] MessageID procedure is used. | Path | | | |--------------->| Path | | | |----------X | | | | | | TIMER EXPIRES | | | | Path Tear | Path Tear | Path Tear | |--------------->|--------------->|--------------->| | | | | Ingress LER LSR A LSR B Egress LER Caviglia, et al. Expires July 12, 2010 [Page 8] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Ext for MP2CP LSP Handover January 2010 MP2CP - Path Msg and Communication Failure (no reliable delivery) If the Resv message is not received before the expiration of the Expiration timer the handover procedure is aborted as described in Section 4.1. Please note that any node that has forwarded a Path (LSR A), i.e. has installed local path state, MUST send a PathTear when that state is removed. 4.2.2. MP to CP Handover Failure - Resv Error 4.2.2.1. MP to CP Handover Failure - Resv Error and Data Plane failure In the case of failure occurrence during the Resv message processing, (in case there has been any change in the data plane during the signaling) the node MUST send a PathErr message in the upstream direction. The PathErr message is constructed and processed as defined above in Section 4.2.1.1. The failure detection node MUST also send a PathTear message downstream. The PathTear message is constructed and processed as defined above in Section 4.2.1.1. | Path | Path | Path | |--------------->|--------------->|--------------->| | | | Resv | | | Resv |<---------------| | |X---------------| | | PathErr | PathTear | PathTear | |<---------------|--------------->|--------------->| | | | | Ingress LER LSR A LSR B Egress LER MP2CP - Resv Error and DP Failure In the case shown in the above picture, the failure occurs in LSR A. A PathTear message is sent towards B and a PathErr message (with ErrorCode set to "Handover Procedure Failure") is sent in the upstream direction. The PathErr and PathTear messages remove the Path state established by the Path messages along the nodes of the LSP and abort the handover procedure. Please note that the failure occurred after the handover procedure was successfully completed in LSR B, but Handover state will still be maintained locally as, per Section 4.1, a Path message with the H bit clear will have not yet been sent or received. A node that receives a PahTear when it has Path state with the H bit set MUST remove Path state, but MUST NOT change data plane state. It MUST return LSP ownership to the MP. Caviglia, et al. Expires July 12, 2010 [Page 9] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Ext for MP2CP LSP Handover January 2010 4.2.2.2. MP to CP Handover Failure - Resv Error and Communication failure When a Resv message cannot reach one or more of the upstream nodes, the procedure is quite similar to the one previously seen about the Path message. Even in this case it is possible to distinguish two different scenarios. In the first scenario we consider the utilization of a reliable message delivery based on the mechanism defined in [RFC2961]. After a correct forwarding of the Path message along the nodes of the LSP, the Egress LSR sends a Resv message in the opposite direction. It might happen that the Resv message does not reach the ingress LER or an LSR, say LSR A. LSR B MUST send a Resv message again for a configurable number of times and then, if the delivery does not succeed, the adoption procedure will be aborted (via the Expiration timer). | Path | Path | Path | |--------------->|--------------->|--------------->| | | | Resv | | | Resv |<---------------| | | X---------| | | | X---------| | | | ... | | | | X---------| | | | | | Ingress LER LSR A LSR B Egress LER MP2CP - Resv Error and Communication Failure (reliable delivery) Considering that the Resv message did not manage to reach LSR A, it is highly probable that the PathErr would fail too. Due to this fact, the Expiration timer is used on the Ingress LER after sending the path and on LSR A after forwarding it. When the timer expires, if no Resv or PathErr message is received, the handover procedure is aborted as described in Section 4.1 and the LSP ownership returned to the Management Plane. The following picture, on the other hand, shows the scenario in which no reliable delivery mechanism is implemented. Caviglia, et al. Expires July 12, 2010 [Page 10] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Ext for MP2CP LSP Handover January 2010 | Path | Path | Path | |--------------->|--------------->|--------------->| | | | Resv | | | Resv |<---------------| | | X---------| | TIMER EXPIRES | | | | Path Tear | Path Tear | Path Tear | |--------------->|--------------->|--------------->| | | | | Ingress LER LSR A LSR B Egress LER MP2CP - Resv Error and Communication Failure (no reliable delivery) If non Resv message is received before the Expiration timer expires, the ingress LER follows the same procedure defined in Section 4.1. 4.2.2.3. MP to CP Handover Failure - Node Graceful Restart In the case of node restart and graceful restart is enabled then one of the following scenarios will happen. Case I - Finite Restart Time In this case, the Restart Time (see [RFC3473]) is finite, i.e., not a value of 0xffffffff. In the sequence diagram below, assume LSR A restarts. If the ingress LER does not receive the Resv message in time it MUST abort the handover process by generating a PathTear message downstream. Also, if LSR A does not complete the restart process within the restart time interval then LSR B MUST start tearing down all LSPs between LSR A and LSR B and this includes the LSP that is being used to carry out the handover of MP resources to CP. LSP B MUST generate a PathTear message downstream and a PathErr message upstream. Both LSR B and the egress LER MUST NOT release the DP resources because in both nodes the H bit is set in the local Path state. Caviglia, et al. Expires July 12, 2010 [Page 11] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Ext for MP2CP LSP Handover January 2010 | Path | Path | Path | |--------------->|--------------->|--------------->| | | | Resv | | | Resv |<---------------| | X X---------| | | PathTear | | |-------X Restart Timer | | Expires | | PathErr | PathTear | | X--------|--------------->| | | | | X | | | | | | Ingress LER LSR A LSR B Egress LER MP2CP - Node graceful restart - Case I Case II - Infinite Restart Time In this case, the Restart Time (see [RFC3473]) indicates that the restart of the sender's control plane may occur over an indeterminate interval, i.e., is 0xffffffff. The sequence is quite similar to the previous one. In this sequence the restart timer will not expire in LSR B since it is run infinitely. Instead after LSR A restarts LSR B MUST start the recovery timer. The recovery timer will expire since there will be no Path message with the RECOVERY LABEL received from LSR A given the ingress node had already removed the local Path state after it aborts the handover process. Thus LSR B MUST tear-down the specific LSP that is being used to convert the MP resources to CP by generating a PathTear message downstream and PathErr message upstream. Similarly to the previous case both LSR B and the egress LER MUST NOT release the DP resources because the H bit is set in the local Path state. Caviglia, et al. Expires July 12, 2010 [Page 12] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Ext for MP2CP LSP Handover January 2010 | Path | Path | Path | |--------------->|--------------->|--------------->| | | | Resv | | | Resv |<---------------| | X X---------| | | PathTear | | |-------X | | | | | | X | | | | | | | | Recovery Timer | | | Expires | | PathErr | PathErr | PathTear | |<---------------|<---------------|--------------->| | | | | Ingress LER LSR A LSR B Egress LER MP2CP - Node graceful restart - Case II Case III Ingress LER did not abort the handover process. Once LSR A restarts the ingress LER MUST re-generate the Path message with the H bit set. When LSR B receives the Path message it MAY generate a PathErr since the RECOVERY LABEL may not be present. The reason is LSR A may not have the label. Similarly LSR B and egress LER MUST NOT release the DP resources since the H bit is set. | Path | Path | Path | |--------------->|--------------->|--------------->| | | | Resv | | | Resv |<---------------| | X X---------| | | | | | X | | | | | | | Path | Path | | |--------------->|--------------->| | | PathErr | PathErr | PathTear | |<---------------|<---------------|--------------->| | | | | Ingress LER LSR A LSR B Egress LER MP2CP - Node graceful restart - Case III Caviglia, et al. Expires July 12, 2010 [Page 13] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Ext for MP2CP LSP Handover January 2010 4.3. CP to MP handover : LSP Ownership Transfer From Control Plane To Management Plane Let's now consider the case of LSP Ownership Transfer From Control Plane To Management Plane. Also in this section we will analyze the handover procedure success and failure. The scenario is still a DP connection between two nodes acting as ingress and egress for a LSP, but in this case the CP has the ownership and control of the LSP. The CP to MP handover procedure MUST delete the existing RSVP-TE session information and MUST NOT affect the cross-connected resources, but just move their ownership to the MP. In other words, after LSP ownership transfer from CP to MP, the LSP is no longer under control of RSVP-TE, which is no more able to "see" the LSP itself. The CP to MP handover procedure MUST be a standard LSP deletion procedure as described in Section 7.2.1 of [RFC3473]. The procedure is initiated at the ingress node of the LSP by a MP entity. Ingress node and MP exchange the relevant information for this task and then propagate it over CP by means of RSVP-TE tear down signaling as described below. The ingress node MUST send a Path message in the downstream direction with Handover and Reflect bits set in the ADMIN_STATUS Object. No action is taken over the DP and transit LSRs must forward such message towards the egress node. All of the nodes MUST keep track of the procedure storing the H bit in their local Path and Resv states. Then every node waits for the H bit to be received within the related Resv message. After the Resv message is received by the ingress LER, it MUST send a PathTear message in order to clear the whole LSP information recorded on the RSVP-TE data structures of the nodes. Downstream nodes processing a PathTear message which follows a Path message with the H bit set, MUST NOT remove any associated data plane state. In other words, a normal LSP tear down signaling is exchanged between nodes traversed by the LSP, but H bit set in the Path message indicates that no DP action has to correspond to CP signaling. 4.4. CP to MP Handover Procedure Failure Failures during CP to MP handover procedure MUST NOT result in the removal of any associated data plane state. To that end, when a Resv message containing an ADMIN_STATUS Object with the H bit is not received during the period of time described in Section 7.2.2. of [RFC3473] different processing is required. Specifically, the ingress node MUST NOT send a PathTear message before a Resv message containing the H bit is received. The ingress node MAY choose to report the failure in the CP to MP handover procedure via the MP. Caviglia, et al. Expires July 12, 2010 [Page 14] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Ext for MP2CP LSP Handover January 2010 The CP to MP handover procedure can fail also due to two causes: PathTear lost or node down. In the former case, if the LSP is not under MP control after the Expiration Timer elapses, a manual intervention from the network operator is requested, while in the latter case different scenarios may happen: - CASE I - Path message and node down | Path | Path X | |--------------->|--------------X | | | | | | X | | | | | | | | | Ingress LER LSR A LSR B Egress LER Per [RFC 3473] section 7.2.2 the ingress node should wait for a configurable amount of time (30 seconds by default) and then send a PathTear message. In this case the normal deletion procedure MUST NOT be followed. When the Expiration timer elapses a manual intervention from network operator is requested. - CASE II - Resv message and node down | Path | Path | Path | |--------------->|--------------->|--------------->| | | | Resv | | | Resv |<---------------| | X X---------| | | | | | X | | | | | | Ingress LER LSR A LSR B Egress LER The procedure to be followed is the same depicted in CASE I. The network operator can ask for the automatic CP to MP procedure again after the failed node comes back up. Per [RFC 3473] section 7.2 the nodes will forward the new Path and Resv messages correctly. - CASE III - PathTear message and node down Caviglia, et al. Expires July 12, 2010 [Page 15] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Ext for MP2CP LSP Handover January 2010 | Path | Path | Path | |--------------->|--------------->|--------------->| | Resv | Resv | Resv | |<---------------|<---------------|<---------------| | PathTear | | | |--------------->| PathTear X | | |------------X | | | X | | | | | Ingress LER LSR A LSR B Egress LER This scenario can be managed as a normal PathTear lost described above in this section. 5. Minimum Information for MP to CP Handover An alternative way of getting the LSP related information required for the MP to CP handover is also defined in this draft. The rationale behind this way is that only a minimal set of information is handed over from MP to CP at LSPs Ingress node. Instead of collecting within MP all the LSP relevant information down to the Label level, formatting it to an ERO and passing it to CP, as in previously described solution, it is possible to start with a minimum amount of information. The full ERO method and the partial/no ERO one do not exclude each other; both methods are required. At the ingress node, the information needed to specify the LSP is the outgoing interface ID, upstream label and downstream label of this interface and the egress node ID. The remaining information about an existing LSP can then be collected hop by hop, as the signaling is going on, by looking up the cross-connection table in DP at each node along the LSP path. Starting from the information available at ingress LER about the outgoing interface ID of that ingress node, the incoming interface ID of next hop can be found by looking up the link resource table/ database in the LER itself. The Path message is hence built with the LABEL_SET Object ([RFC3473]) and the UPSTREAM_LABEL Object ([RFC3473]), where the upstream label and downstream label of ingress outgoing interface of the LSP are included in these two objects. In addition to above mentioned objects, the Path message MUST include the ADMIN_STATUS Object with H bit set, as already defined in previous chapters for the detailed ERO based way of proceeding. Such handover Path is sent to the incoming interface of next hop. When this Path message reaches the second node along the LSP path, the information about incoming interface ID Caviglia, et al. Expires July 12, 2010 [Page 16] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Ext for MP2CP LSP Handover January 2010 and the upstream and downstream labels of this interface is extracted from it and it is used to find next hop outgoing interface ID and the upstream/downstream labels by looking up the DP cross-connection table. After having determined in this way the parameters describing the LSPs next hop, the outgoing Path message to be sent is built replacing the LABEL_SET Object and UPSTREAM_LABEL Object content with the looked-up values of upstream and downstream labels. By repeating this procedure for each transit node along the LSP, it is possible to make the handover Path message reach the egress node, exactly following the LSP that is in place over DP. The ERO MAY in this case be included in the Path message as an optional object, and MAY be filled with the LSP relevant information down to either the port level with interface ID or the Label level with upstream and downstream labels. The ERO can be used to check the consistency of resource in DP down to the port level or label level at each intermediate node along the LSP path. Where the DP path continues beyond the egress, by indicating the Egress label at the head-end of an LSP, the traffic can be directed to the right destination. The GMPLS Signaling Procedure for Egress Control is described in [RFC4003] 6. RSVP Message Formats This memo does not introduce any modification in RSVP messages object composition. 7. Objects Modification The modifications required concern two RSVP objects: the ADMIN_STATUS and the ERROR_SPEC Object. 7.1. Administrative Status Object This memo introduces a new flag into the ADMIN_STATUS object. The ADMIN_STATUS Object is defined in [RFC3473]. This document uses the H bit of the ADMIN_STATUS Object. The bit is bit number (TBD by IANA) (25). 7.2. Error Spec Object It is possible that a failure, such as the loss of DCN connection or the restart of a node, occurs during the LSP ownership handing over. Caviglia, et al. Expires July 12, 2010 [Page 17] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Ext for MP2CP LSP Handover January 2010 In this case the LSP handover procedure is interrupted, the ownership of the LSP must remain with the ownership prior to the initiation of the handover procedure. It is important that the transaction failure does not affect the DP. The LSP is kept in place and no traffic hit occurs. The failure is signaled by PathErr in the upstream direction and PathTear Messages in the downstream direction. The PathErr messages include an ERROR_SPEC Object specifying the causes of the failure. This memo introduces a new Error Code (with different Error Values) into the ERROR_SPEC Object, defined in [RFC2205]. The defined Error Code is "Handover Procedure Failure", and its value is (TBD by IANA)(35). For this Error Code the following Error Values are defined: 1 = Cross-connection mismatch 2 = Other failure 8. Compatibility The main requirement for Handover procedure to work is that all nodes along the path MUST support the extension defined in this draft. This requirement translates to an administrative requirement as it is not enforced at the protocol level. As defined, non-supporting will simply propagate the H bit without setting local state. This may result in an impact data traffic during the handover procedure. 9. Acknowledgments We wish to thank Adrian Farrel and Lou Berger for their assistance and precious advices to prepare this draft for publication. We also wish to thank Nicola Ciulli (Nextworks), that contributed to the initial stage of this draft. 10. Contributors Shan Zhu Fujitsu Network Communications Inc. 2801 Telecom Parkway, Richardson, Texas 75082 USA Caviglia, et al. Expires July 12, 2010 [Page 18] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Ext for MP2CP LSP Handover January 2010 Email: Shan.Zhu@us.fujitsu.com Tel: +1-972-479-2041 Igor Bryskin ADVA Optical Networking Inc 7926 Jones Branch Drive Suite 615 McLean, VA - 22102 Email: ibryskin@advaoptical.com Francesco Fondelli Ericsson Via Negrone 1/A Genova - 16145 Email: francesco.fondelli@ericsson.com Lou Berger LabN Consulting, LLC Phone: +1 301 468 9228 EMail: lberger@labn.net 11. Security Considerations The procedures described in this document rely completely on RSVP-TE messages and mechanism. The use of H bit set in ADMIN_STATUS Object basically informs the receiving entity that no operations are to be done over DP as consequence of such special signaling flow. Using specially flagged signaling messages we want to limit the function of setup and tear down messages to CP, making them not effective over related DP resource usage. However the handover procedures allow the control plane to be used to take an LSP out of the control of the Management Plane. This could cause considerable disruption and could introduce a new security concern. As a consequence the use of GMPLS security techniques is more important. For RSVP-TE Security please refer to [RFC3473], while for GMPLS security framework please refer to [sec-fwk]. 12. IANA Considerations IANA has been asked to manage the bit allocations for the ADMIN_STATUS Object ([RFC3473]). This document requires the allocation of the Handover bit: the H bit. IANA is requested to allocate a bit for this purpose. Caviglia, et al. Expires July 12, 2010 [Page 19] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Ext for MP2CP LSP Handover January 2010 Bit Number Hex Value Name Reference ---------- ----------- ------------------------------------ --------- 25 0x00000040 Handover (H) [This.I-D] IANA has also been asked to allocate a new error code: 35 Handover failure This Error Code has the following globally-defined Error Value sub-code: 1 = Cross-connection mismatch 2 = Other failure 13. References 13.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC2205] Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S. Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997. [RFC2961] Berger, L., Gan, D., Swallow, G., Pan, P., Tommasi, F., and S. Molendini, "RSVP Refresh Overhead Reduction Extensions", RFC 2961, April 2001. [RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, January 2003. [RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. [RFC3945] Mannie, E., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004. [RFC4003] Berger, L., "GMPLS Signaling Procedure for Egress Control", RFC 4003, February 2005. Caviglia, et al. Expires July 12, 2010 [Page 20] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Ext for MP2CP LSP Handover January 2010 13.2. Informational References [RFC5493] Caviglia, D., Bramanti, D., Li, D., and D. McDysan, "Requirements for the Conversion between Permanent Connections and Switched Connections in a Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Network", RFC 5493, April 2009. [sec-fwk] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks", July 2009. Authors' Addresses Diego Caviglia Ericsson Via A. Negrone 1/A Genova - Sestri Ponente Italy Email: diego.caviglia@ericsson.com Daniele Ceccarelli Ericsson Via A. Negrone 1/A Genova - Sestri Ponente Italy Email: daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com Dino Bramanti Ericsson Dan Li Huawei Technologies F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China Email: danli@huawei.com Caviglia, et al. Expires July 12, 2010 [Page 21] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Ext for MP2CP LSP Handover January 2010 Snigdho Bardalai Fujitsu Network 2801 Telecom Parkway Richrdson, Texas 75082 USA Email: Snigdho.Bardalai@us.fujitsu.com Caviglia, et al. Expires July 12, 2010 [Page 22]