idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021) /tmp/idnits61371/draft-fedyk-bgpvpon-auto-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Looks like you're using RFC 2026 boilerplate. This must be updated to follow RFC 3978/3979, as updated by RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about 6 months document validity -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) ** The document seems to lack an Authors' Addresses Section. ** The document seems to lack separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. ** There is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 3 characters in excess of 72. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (March 2001) is 7730 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'TBD' is mentioned on line 304, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'BGP-COMM' is defined on line 308, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC-2283' is defined on line 311, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'BGP-MPLS' is defined on line 314, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC-3031' is defined on line 317, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC-3032' is defined on line 320, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC-2685' is defined on line 326, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'VPN-BGP' is defined on line 329, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'Framework' is defined on line 337, but no explicit reference was found in the text -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'BGP-COMM' ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2283 (Obsoleted by RFC 2858) -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'BGP-MPLS' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'VPN-BGP' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'GMPLS' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'Framework' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'OIF-UNI' Summary: 7 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 11 warnings (==), 8 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Provider Provisioned VPN Don Fedyk 2 Internet Draft Hamid Ould-Brahim 3 draft-fedyk-bgpvpon-auto-00.txt Peter Ashwood-Smith 4 Expiration Date: September 2001 Nortel Networks 6 Yakov Rekhter 7 Juniper Networks 9 Eric C. Rosen 10 Cisco Systems 12 March 2001 14 BGP based Auto-Discovery 15 mechanism for Optical VPNs 17 Status of this Memo 19 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance 20 with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026 [RFC-2026], except 21 that the right to produce derivative works is not granted. 23 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 24 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 25 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 26 Drafts. 28 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six 29 months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents 30 at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as 31 reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 33 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 34 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt 35 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 36 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 38 Abstract 40 Consider a service provider network that offers Optical Virtual 41 Private Network (OVPN) service. An important goal in the OVPN 42 service is the ability to support what is known as _single end 43 provisioning_, where addition of a new port to a given OVPN would 44 involve configuration/provisioning changes only on the devices 45 connected to that port. Another important goal in the OVPN service 46 is the ability to establish/terminate an optical connection between 47 a pair of (existing) ports within an OVPN without involving 48 configuration/provisioning changes in any of the provider devices. 49 In this document we describe a set of mechanisms that accomplishes 50 these goals. 52 1. Optical VPN Reference Model 54 Consider a service provider network that consists of devices such as 55 Optical Network Element (ONE) which may be Optical Cross Connects 56 (OXCs). We partition these devices into P (provider) ONEs and PE 57 (provider edge) ONEs. The P ONEs are connected only to the ONEs 58 within the provider's network. The PE ONEs are connected to the ONEs 59 within the provider network, as well as to the devices outside of 60 the provider network. We'll refer to such other devices as Client 61 Devices (CDs). An example of a CD would be a router, or a SONET/SDH 62 cross-connect. 64 +---+ +---+ 65 | P |....| P | 66 +---+ +---+ 67 PE / \ PE 68 +-----+ +-----+ +--+ 69 | | | |----| | 70 +--+ | | | | |CD| 71 |CD|----+-----+ | |----| | 72 +--+\ | | | +--+ 73 \ +-----+ | | 74 \ | | | | +--+ 75 \| | | |----|CD| 76 +-----+ +-----+ +--+ 77 \ / 78 +---+ +---+ 79 | P |....| P | 80 +---+ +---+ 82 Figure 1 Optical VPN Reference Model 84 A CD is connected to a PE ONE via one or more ports, where each port 85 may consists of one or more channels or sub-channels (e.g., 86 wavelength or wavelength and timeslot respectively). For purpose of 87 this discussion we assume that all the channels within a given port 88 have shared similar characteristics (e.g., bandwidth, encoding, 89 etc_), and can be interchanged from the CDs point of view. Channels 90 on different ports of a CD need not have the same characteristics. 91 There may be more than one port between a given CD PE pair. A CD may 92 be connected to more than one PE ONE (with at least one port per 93 each PE ONE). And, of course, a PE ONE may have more than one CD 94 connected to it. 96 A pair of CDs could be connected through the service provider 97 network via an optical connection. It is precisely this optical 98 connection that forms the basic unit of service that the service 99 provider network offers. If a port by which a CD is connected to a 100 PE ONE consists of multiple channels (e.g., multiple wavelengths), 101 the CD could establish optical connection to multiple other CDs over 102 this single port. 104 In the context of this document we'll refer to an Optical VPN (OVPN) 105 as a collection of ports that connect the CDs owned by the same 106 organization to the service provider network. A given service 107 provider network could support multiple OVPNs. Moreover, not all 108 ports on a given PE ONE that connect that PE ONE to CDs must belong 109 to the same OVPN. 111 An important goal in the OVPN service is the ability to support what 112 is known as _single end provisioning_, where addition of a new port 113 to a given OVPN would involve configuration/prov-isioning changes 114 only on the PE ONE that has this port and on the CD that is 115 connected to the PE ONE via this port. Another important goal in the 116 OVPN service is the ability to establish/terminate an optical 117 connection between a pair of (existing) ports within an OVPN without 118 involving configuration/provisioning changes in any of the 119 provider's ONEs. In this document we describe a set of mechanisms 120 that accomplishes these goals. 122 The actual connectivity among ports within a given OVPN is 123 controlled by the OVPN itself, and is outside the scope of this of 124 this document. It is up to the CDs to create their own topology. The 125 CDs have control on CD-to-CD connectivity. 126 This allows creation of the OVPN. The learning of the complete OVPN 127 members is outside of the scope auto-discovery mechanism described 128 in this document. 130 Since this model involves minimal provisioning changes when changing 131 the connectivity among the ports within a OVPN on the providers 132 network and the OVPNs themselves are controlled by the CDs, the 133 tariff structure may be on a port basis or alternatively tariffs 134 could be triggered of signaling mechanisms. 136 Finally, it is assumed that CD-to-CD optical connectivity is based 137 on GMPLS [GMPLS] and typically provides UNI [OIF-UNI] and/or NNI 138 capability. This signaling is not covered in this document. 140 2. Overview of operations 142 This document assumes that within a given OVPN each port has an 143 identifier that is unique within that OVPN (but need not be unique 144 across several OVPNs). One way to accomplish this is to assign each 145 port an IP address that is unique within a given OVPN, and use this 146 address as a port identifier. Another way to accomplish this is to 147 assigned each port an interface index that is unique within a given 148 CD, assign each CD an IP address that is unique within a given OVPN, 149 and then use a tuple acts as a port 150 identifier. 152 This document assumes that within a service provider network, each 153 port on a PE ONE has an identifier that is unique within that 154 network. One way to accomplish this would be to assign each port on 155 a PE ONE an interface index, assign each PE ONE an IP address that 156 is unique within the service provider network, and then use a tuple 157 as a port identifier within the 158 provider network. 160 PE ONE PE ONE 161 +---------+ +--------------+ 162 +--------+ | +------+| | +----------+ | +--------+ 163 | VPN-A | | |VPN-A || | | VPN-A | | | VPN-A | 164 | CD1 |--| |PIT || BGP route | | PIT | |-| CD2 | 165 +--------+ | | ||<----------->| | | | +--------+ 166 | +------+| Distribution| +----------+ | 167 | | | | 168 +--------+ | +------+| -------- | +----------+ | +--------+ 169 | VPN-B | | |VPN-B || ( Optical ) | | VPN-B | | | VPN-B | 170 | CD1 |--| |PIT ||-( GMPLS )-| | PIT | |-| CD2 | 171 +--------+ | | || (Backbone ) | | | | +--------+ 172 | +------+| --------- | +----------+ | 173 | | | | 174 +--------+ | +-----+ | | +----------+ | +--------+ 175 | VPN-C | | |VPN-C| | | | VPN-C | | | VPN-C | 176 | CD1 |--| |PIT | | | | PIT | |-| CD2 | 177 +--------+ | | | | | | | | +--------+ 178 | +-----+ | | +----------+ | 179 +---------+ +--------------+ 181 Figure 2 OVPN Components 183 As a result, each port has an identifier that is unique within a 184 given OVPN, and (another) identifier that is unique within the 185 service provider network. We'll refer to the former as the customer 186 port identifier (CPI), and to the latter as the provider port 187 identifier (PPI). 189 Each PE ONE maintains a Port Information Table (PIT) for each OVPN 190 that has at least one port on that PE ONE. A PIT contains a list of 191 tuples for all the ports within its OVPN. 193 A PIT on a given PE ONE is populated from two sources: the 194 information received from the CDs attached to the ports on that PE 195 ONEs, and the information received from other PE ONEs. We'll refer 196 to the former as the _local_ information, and to the latter as the 197 _remote_ information. 199 The local information is propagated to other PE ONEs by using BGP 200 with multi-protocol extensions. To restrict the flow of this 201 information to only the PITs within a given OVPN, we use BGP route 202 filtering based on the Route Target Extended Community, as follows. 204 When a service provider adds a new OVPN, the service provider 205 allocates a new BGP Route Target Extended Community that will be 206 used for the purpose of this OVPN. Each PIT on a PE ONE is 207 configured with the Route Target associated with the OVPN of that 208 PIT, and that creates an association between a PIT and an OVPN. When 209 exporting local information into provider's BGP, this information is 210 tagged with the Route Target Community. When importing remote 211 information into a particular PIT, only the information with the 212 Route Target Community equal to the one configured for the PIT could 213 be imported into the PIT. 215 When a service provider adds a new OVPN port to a particular PE ONE, 216 this port is associated at provisioning time with a PIT on that PE 217 ONE, and this PIT is associated (again at provisioning time) with 218 that OVPN. 220 Once a port is configured on the PE ONE, the CD that is attached via 221 this port to the PE ONE passes to the PE ONE the CPI information of 222 that port. This document assumes that this is accomplished by using 223 a (subset of) GMPLS signaling. This information, combined with the 224 PPI information available to the PE ONE, enables the PE ONE to 225 create a tuple for such port, and then use this tuple to 226 populate the PIT of the OVPN associated with that port. 228 A PE ONE uses the information in its PITs to provide CDs connected 229 to that PE ONE with the information about CPIs of other ports within 230 the same OVPN, which we'll refer to as _target ports_. This document 231 assumes that this is accomplished by using a (subset of) GMPLS 232 signaling. Once a CD has this information, the CD uses a (subset of) 233 GMPLS signaling to request the provider network to establish an 234 optical connection to a target port. The request originated by the 235 CD contains the CPI of the port on the CD that CD wants to use for 236 the optical connection, and the CPI of the target port. When the PE 237 ONE attached to the CD that originated the request receives the 238 request, the PE ONE identifies the appropriate PIT, and then uses 239 the information in that PIT to find out the PPI associated with the 240 CPI of the target port carried in the request. The PPI should be 241 sufficient for the PE ONE to establish an optical connection. 242 Ultimately the request reaches the CD associated with the target CPI 243 (note that the request still carries the CPI of the CD that 244 originated the request). If the CD associated with the target CPI 245 accepts the request, the optical connection is established. 247 Note that a CD need not establish an optical connection to every 248 target port that CD knows about _ it is a local to the CD matter to 249 select a subset of target ports to which the CD will try to 250 establish optical connections. 252 A port, in addition to its CPI and PPI may also have other 253 information associated with it that describes characteristics of the 254 channels within that port, such as encoding supported by the 255 channels, bandwidth of a channel, total unreserved bandwidth within 256 the port, etc_ This information is used to ensure that ports at 257 each end of an optical connection have compatible characteristics, 258 and that there are sufficient unallocated resources to establish an 259 optical connection. Distribution of this information (including the 260 mechanisms for distributing this information) is identical to the 261 distribution of the CPI information. Distributing changes to this 262 information due to establishing/terminating of optical connections 263 is identical to the distribution of the CPI information, except that 264 thresholds should be used to contain the volume of control traffic 265 caused by such distribution. 267 It may happen that for a given pair of ports within an OVPN, each of 268 the CDs connected to these ports would concurrently try to establish 269 an optical connection to the other CD. If having a pair of optical 270 connections between a pair of ports is viewed as undesirable, the a 271 way to resolve this is have CD with the lower value of CPI is 272 required to terminate the optical connection originated by the CD. 273 This option could be controlled by configuration on the CD devices. 275 3 Encoding 277 This section specifies encoding of various information defined in 278 this document 280 3.1 Encoding of CPI and channel characteristics in GMPLS Signaling 282 [TBD] 284 3.2 Encoding of CPI, PPI, and channel characteristics in BGP 286 [TBD] 288 4 Other issues 289 While the above text assumes that the service provider network 290 consists of ONEs and ports are connected via optical connections, 291 the mechanisms described in this document could be applied in an 292 environment, where the service provider network consists of 293 SONET/SDH cross connects and ports are connected via SONET/SDH sub- 294 channels with each other. 296 Since the protocol used to populate a PIT with remote information is 297 BGP, since BGP works across multiple routing domains, and since 298 GMPLS signaling isn't restricted to a single routing domain, it 299 follows that the mechanisms described in this document could support 300 an environment that consists of multiple routing domains. 302 5. Security Considerations 304 [TBD] 306 7. References 308 [BGP-COMM] Ramachandra, Tappan, "BGP Extended Communities 309 Attribute", February 2000, work in progress. 311 [RFC-2283] Bates, Chandra, Katz, and Rekhter, "Multiprotocol 312 Extensions for BGP4", RFC2283, February 1998. 314 [BGP-MPLS] Rekhter Y, Rosen E., "Carrying Label Information in 315 BGP4", January 2001, work in progress. 317 [RFC-3031] Rosen, Viswanathan, and Callon, "Multiprotocol Label 318 Switching Architecture", RFC3031, January 2001. 320 [RFC-3032] Rosen, Rekhter, Tappan, Farinacci, Fedorkow, Li, and 321 Conta, "MPLS Label Stack Encoding", RFC3032, January 2001. 323 [RFC-2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 324 3", RFC2026, October 1996. 326 [RFC-2685] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 327 Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997. 329 [VPN-BGP] Ould-Brahim H., Gleeson B., Ashwood-Smith P., Rosen E., 330 Rekhter Y., "Using BGP as an Auto-Discovery Mechanism for 331 Network-based VPNs", work in progress. 333 [GMPLS] Ashwood-Smith, P., Berger, L. et al., _Generalized MPLS - 334 Signaling Functional Description_, November 2000, work in 335 progress. 337 [Framework] Rajagopalan, B. et al., _IP over Optical Networks: A 338 Framework _, November 2000, work in progress. 340 [OIF-UNI] Optical Networking Forum., _User Network Interface (UNI) 341 1.0 Signaling Specification_, work in progress. 343 8. Acknowledgments. 345 The authors would like to thank Osama Aboul-Magd for reviewing the 346 draft and providing comments. 348 8. Author's Addresses 350 Don Fedyk 351 Nortel Networks 352 600 Technology Park 353 Billerica, Massachusetts 354 01821 U.S.A. 355 Phone: +1 (978) 288 3041 356 Email: dwfedyk@nortelnetworks.com 358 Hamid Ould-Brahim 359 Nortel Networks 360 P O Box 3511 Station C 361 Ottawa ON K1Y 4H7 Canada 362 Phone: +1 (613) 765 3418 363 Email: hbrahim@nortelnetworks.com 365 Peter Ashwood-Smith 366 Nortel Networks 367 P.O. Box 3511 Station C, 368 Ottawa, ON K1Y 4H7, Canada 369 Phone: +1 613 763 4534 370 Email: petera@nortelnetworks.com 372 Yakov Rekhter 373 Juniper Networks 374 1194 N. Mathilda Avenue 375 Sunnyvale, CA 94089 376 Email: yakov@juniper.net 378 Eric C. Rosen 379 Cisco Systems, Inc. 380 250 Apollo drive 381 Chelmsford, MA, 01824 382 E-mail: erosen@cisco.com 384 Ould-Brahim, et. al 9 385 Full Copyright Statement 387 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved. 388 This document and translations of it may be copied and 389 furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or 390 otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be 391 prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in 392 part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above 393 copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such 394 copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may 395 not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright 396 notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet 397 organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing 398 Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights 399 defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or 400 as required to translate it into languages other than English. 402 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will 403 not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or 404 assigns.