draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-01.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-02.txt 
CCAMP Working Group Dimitri Papadimitriou Network Working Group Dimitri Papadimitriou
Internet Draft (Alcatel) Internet Draft (Alcatel)
Category: Standard Category: Standard
OSPFv2 Routing Protocol Extensions for ASON Routing
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-01.txt Expiration Date: February 2007 October 2006
OSPFv2 Routing Protocols Extensions for ASON Routing
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-02.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 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 becomes have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of 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
skipping to change at line 47 skipping to change at line 50
The Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) suite of protocols has been defined to The Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) suite of protocols has been defined to
control different switching technologies as well as different control different switching technologies as well as different
applications. These include support for requesting TDM connections applications. These include support for requesting TDM connections
including SONET/SDH and Optical Transport Networks (OTNs). including SONET/SDH and Optical Transport Networks (OTNs).
This document provides the extensions of the OSPFv2 Link State This document provides the extensions of the OSPFv2 Link State
Routing Protocol to meet the routing requirements for an Routing Protocol to meet the routing requirements for an
Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON) as defined by ITU-T. Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON) as defined by ITU-T.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires December 2006 1 D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires February 2007 1
1. Conventions used in this document 1. 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 this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
The reader is assumed to be familiar with the terminology and The reader is assumed to be familiar with the terminology and
requirements developed in [RFC4258] and the evaluation outcomes requirements developed in [RFC4258] and the evaluation outcomes
detailed in [ASON-EVAL]. detailed in [ASON-EVAL].
2. Introduction 2. Introduction
There are certain capabilities that are needed to support the ITU-T There are certain capabilities that are needed to support the ITU-T
Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON) control plane Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON) control plane
architecture as defined in [G.8080]. [RFC4258] details the routing architecture as defined in [G.8080]. [RFC4258] details the routing
requirements for the GMPLS suite of routing protocols to support the requirements for the GMPLS suite of routing protocols to support the
capabilities and functionality of ASON control planes identified in capabilities and functionality of ASON control planes identified in
[G.7715] and in [G.7715.1]. [G.7715] and in [G.7715.1].
[ASON-EVAL] evaluates the IETF Link State Routing Protocols against Section 7 of [ASON-EVAL] evaluates the IETF Link State Routing
the requirements identified in [RFC4258]. Candidate routing protocols Protocols against the requirements identified in [RFC4258]. Section
are IGP (OSPFv2 and IS-IS). This document details the OSPFv2 7.1 of [ASON-EVAL] summarizes the capabilities to be provided by
specifics for ASON routing. OSPFv2 [RFC2328] in support of ASON routing. From the candidate
routing protocols identified in [ASON-EVAL] (OSPFv2 and IS-IS), this
document details the OSPFv2 specifics for ASON routing.
ASON (Routing) terminology sections are provided in Appendix 1 and 2. ASON (Routing) terminology sections are provided in Appendix 1 and 2.
3. Reachability 3. Reachability
In order to advertise blocks of reachable address prefixes a In order to advertise blocks of reachable address prefixes a
summarization mechanism is introduced that complements the summarization mechanism is introduced that complements the
techniques described in [OSPF-NODE]. techniques described in [OSPF-NODE].
This extension takes the form of a network mask (a 32-bit number This extension takes the form of a network mask (a 32-bit number
skipping to change at line 100 skipping to change at line 105
TLVs: TLVs:
- Node IPv4 Local Prefix sub-TLV: Type 3 - Length: variable - Node IPv4 Local Prefix sub-TLV: Type 3 - Length: variable
- Node IPv6 Local Prefix sub-TLV: Type 4 - Length: variable - Node IPv6 Local Prefix sub-TLV: Type 4 - Length: variable
3.1 Node IPv4 local prefix sub-TLV 3.1 Node IPv4 local prefix sub-TLV
The node IPv4 local prefix sub-TLV has a type of 3 and contains one The node IPv4 local prefix sub-TLV has a type of 3 and contains one
or more local IPv4 prefixes. It has the following format: or more local IPv4 prefixes. It has the following format:
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires December 2006 2 D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires February 2007 2
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 3 | Length | | 3 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Network Mask 1 | | Network Mask 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Address 1 | | IPv4 Address 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. . . . . .
skipping to change at line 151 skipping to change at line 156
| 4 | Length | | 4 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PrefixLength | PrefixOptions | (0) | | PrefixLength | PrefixOptions | (0) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
| IPv6 Address Prefix 1 | | IPv6 Address Prefix 1 |
| | | |
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. . . . . .
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires February 2007 3
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires December 2006 3
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PrefixLength | PrefixOptions | (0) | | PrefixLength | PrefixOptions | (0) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
| IPv6 Address Prefix n | | IPv6 Address Prefix n |
| | | |
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
PrefixLength: length in bits of the prefix. PrefixLength: length in bits of the prefix.
skipping to change at line 206 skipping to change at line 211
at least one ISCD attribute describing LSC switching capability. at least one ISCD attribute describing LSC switching capability.
Whereas a link between an optical cross-connect and an IP/MPLS LSR Whereas a link between an optical cross-connect and an IP/MPLS LSR
will contain at least two ISCD attributes: one for the description will contain at least two ISCD attributes: one for the description
of the LSC termination capability and one for the PSC adaptation of the LSC termination capability and one for the PSC adaptation
capability. capability.
Note that per [RFC4202], an interface may have more than one ISCD Note that per [RFC4202], an interface may have more than one ISCD
sub-TLV. Hence, the corresponding advertisements should not result sub-TLV. Hence, the corresponding advertisements should not result
in any compatibility issue. in any compatibility issue.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires December 2006 4 D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires February 2007 4
In OSPFv2, the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor is a sub- In OSPFv2, the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor is a sub-
TLV (of type 15) of the top-level Link TLV (of type 2) [RFC4203]. TLV (of type 15) of the top-level Link TLV (of type 2) [RFC4203].
The adaptation and termination capabilities are advertised using two The adaptation and termination capabilities are advertised using two
separate ISCD sub-TLVs within the same top-level link TLV. separate ISCD sub-TLVs within the same top-level link TLV.
4.2 Technology Specific Bandwidth Accounting 4.2 Technology Specific Bandwidth Accounting
GMPLS Routing defines an Interface Switching Capability Descriptor GMPLS Routing defines an Interface Switching Capability Descriptor
(ISCD) that delivers among others the information about the (ISCD) that delivers among others the information about the
skipping to change at line 235 skipping to change at line 240
The purpose is purely informative: there is no mandatory processing The purpose is purely informative: there is no mandatory processing
or topology/traffic-engineering significance associated to this or topology/traffic-engineering significance associated to this
information. information.
In OSPFv2, the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor is a sub- In OSPFv2, the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor is a sub-
TLV (of type 15) of the Link TLV (of type 2). TLV (of type 15) of the Link TLV (of type 2).
5. Routing Information Scope 5. Routing Information Scope
The Ri is a logical control plane entity that is associated to a 5.1. Terminology and Identification
o) Pi is a physical (bearer/data/transport plane) node.
o) Li is a logical control plane entity that is associated to a
single data plane (abstract) node. Each Li is identified by a unique
TE Router_ID. The latter is a control plane identifier, defined as
the Router_Address top level TLV of the Type 1 TE LSA [RFC3630].
Note: the Router_Address top-level TLV definition, processing and
usage remain per [RFC 3630]. This TLV specifies a stable IP address
of the advertising router that is always reachable if there is any
IP connectivity to it. Each advertising router, therefore,
advertises a unique, reachable IP address for each Pi on behalf of
which it makes advertisements.
o) Ri is a logical control plane entity that is associated to a
control plane "router". The latter is the source for topology control plane "router". The latter is the source for topology
information that it generates and shares with other control plane information that it generates and shares with other control plane
"routers". The Ri is identified by the (advertising) Router_ID. The "routers". The Ri is identified by the (advertising) Router_ID (32-
routing protocol MUST support a single Ri advertising on behalf of bit) [RFC2328].
more than one Li. Each Li is identified by a unique TE Router ID.
Note that the Router_Address top-level TLV definition, processing The Router_ID, which is represented by Ri and which corresponds to
and usage remain per [RFC 3630]. This TLV specifies a stable IP
address of the advertising router that is always reachable if there
is any IP connectivity to it.
5.1 Link Advertisement (Local and Remote TE Router ID sub-TLV) D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires February 2007 5
the RC_ID [RFC4258], does not enter into the identification of the
logical entities representing the data plane resources such as
links. The Routing DataBase (RDB) is associated to the Ri.
A Router_ID (Ri) advertising on behalf multiple TE Router_ID (Li's) Aside from the Li/Pi mappings, these identifiers are not assumed to
be in a particular entity relationship except that the Ri may have
multiple Lis in its scope. The relationship between Ri and Li is
simple at any moment in time: an Li may be advertised by only one Ri
at any time. However, an Ri may advertise a set of one or more Lis.
Hence, the OSPFv2 routing protocol must support a single Ri
advertising on behalf of more than one Li.
5.2 Link Advertisement (Local and Remote TE Router ID sub-TLV)
A Router_ID (Ri) advertising on behalf multiple TE Router_IDs (Lis)
creates a 1:N relationship between the Router_ID and the TE creates a 1:N relationship between the Router_ID and the TE
Router_ID. As the link local and link remote (unnumbered) ID Router_ID. As the link local and link remote (unnumbered) ID
association is not unique per node (per Li unicity), the association is not unique per node (per Li unicity), the
advertisement needs to indicate the remote Lj value and rely on the advertisement needs to indicate the remote Lj value and rely on the
initial discovery process to retrieve the [Li;Lj] relationship. In initial discovery process to retrieve the [Li;Lj] relationship. In
brief, as unnumbered links have their ID defined on per Li bases, brief, as unnumbered links have their ID defined on per Li bases,
the remote Lj needs to be identified to scope the link remote ID to the remote Lj needs to be identified to scope the link remote ID to
the local Li. Therefore, the routing protocol MUST be able to the local Li. Therefore, the routing protocol MUST be able to
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires December 2006 5
disambiguate the advertised TE links so that they can be associated disambiguate the advertised TE links so that they can be associated
with the correct TE Router ID. with the correct TE Router ID.
For this purpose, a new sub-TLV of the (OSPFv2 TE LSA) top level For this purpose, a new sub-TLV of the (OSPFv2 TE LSA) top level
Link TLV is introduced that defines the local and the remote Link TLV is introduced that defines the local and the remote
TE_Router_ID. TE_Router_ID.
The type of this sub-TLV is 17, and length is eight octets. The The type of this sub-TLV is 17, and length is eight octets. The
value field of this sub-TLV contains four octets of Local TE Router value field of this sub-TLV contains four octets of Local TE Router
Identifier followed by four octets of Remote TE Router Identifier. Identifier followed by four octets of Remote TE Router Identifier.
skipping to change at line 289 skipping to change at line 317
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local TE Router Identifier | | Local TE Router Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote TE Router Identifier | | Remote TE Router Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
This sub-TLV is optional and SHOULD only be included as part of the This sub-TLV is optional and SHOULD only be included as part of the
top level Link TLV if the Router_ID is advertising on behalf of more top level Link TLV if the Router_ID is advertising on behalf of more
than one TE_Router_ID. In any other case, this sub-TLV SHOULD be than one TE_Router_ID. In any other case, this sub-TLV SHOULD be
omitted except if operator plans to start of with 1 Li and omitted except if operator plans to start of with 1 Li and
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires February 2007 6
progressively add more Li's (under the same Ri) such as to maintain progressively add more Li's (under the same Ri) such as to maintain
consistency. consistency.
Note: The Link ID sub-TLV that identifies the other end of the link Note: The Link ID sub-TLV that identifies the other end of the link
(i.e. Router ID of the neighbor for point-to-point links) MUST (i.e. Router ID of the neighbor for point-to-point links) MUST
appear exactly once per Link TLV. This sub-TLV MUST be processed as appear exactly once per Link TLV. This sub-TLV MUST be processed as
defined in [RFC3630]. defined in [RFC3630].
5.2 Reachability Advertisement (Local TE Router ID sub-TLV) 5.3 Reachability Advertisement (Local TE Router ID sub-TLV)
When the Router_ID advertises on behalf of multiple TE Router_IDs, When the Router_ID advertises on behalf of multiple TE Router_IDs
the routing protocol MUST be able to associate the advertised (Lis), the routing protocol MUST be able to associate the advertised
reachability information with the correct TE Router ID. reachability information with the correct TE Router ID.
For this purpose, a new sub-TLV of the (OSPFv2 TE LSA) top level For this purpose, a new sub-TLV of the (OSPFv2 TE LSA) top level
Node Attribute TLV is introduced. This TLV associates the local Node Attribute TLV is introduced. This TLV associates the local
prefixes (sub-TLV 3 and 4, see above) to a given TE Router_ID. prefixes (sub-TLV 3 and 4, see above) to a given TE Router_ID.
The type of this sub-TLV is 5, and length is four octets. The value The type of this sub-TLV is 5, and length is four octets. The value
field of this sub-TLV contains four octets of Local TE Router field of this sub-TLV contains four octets of Local TE Router
Identifier [RFC3630]. Identifier [RFC3630].
The format of this sub-TLV is the following: The format of this sub-TLV is the following:
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires December 2006 6
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 5 | Length | | 5 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local TE Router Identifier | | Local TE Router Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
This sub-TLV is optional and SHOULD only be included as part of the This sub-TLV is optional and SHOULD only be included as part of the
Node Attribute TLV if the Router_ID is advertising on behalf of more Node Attribute TLV if the Router_ID is advertising on behalf of more
skipping to change at line 342 skipping to change at line 371
links. The limit of the subdivision results in a RA that contains two links. The limit of the subdivision results in a RA that contains two
sub-networks interconnected by a single link. ASON RA levels do not sub-networks interconnected by a single link. ASON RA levels do not
reflect routing protocol levels (such as OSPF areas). OSPF routing reflect routing protocol levels (such as OSPF areas). OSPF routing
areas containing routing areas that recursively define successive areas containing routing areas that recursively define successive
hierarchical levels of RAs can be represented by separate instances hierarchical levels of RAs can be represented by separate instances
of the protocol. of the protocol.
RCs supporting RAs disseminate downward/upward this hierarchy. The RCs supporting RAs disseminate downward/upward this hierarchy. The
vertical routing information dissemination mechanisms described in vertical routing information dissemination mechanisms described in
this section do not introduce or imply a new OSPF routing area this section do not introduce or imply a new OSPF routing area
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires February 2007 7
hierarchy. RCs supporting RAs at multiple levels are structured as hierarchy. RCs supporting RAs at multiple levels are structured as
separate OSPF instances with routing information exchanges between separate OSPF instances with routing information exchanges between
levels described by import/export rules. levels described by import/export rules.
The implication is that an RC that performs import/export of routing The implication is that an RC that performs import/export of routing
information as described in this document does not implement an Area information as described in this document does not implement an Area
Border Router (ABR) functionality. Border Router (ABR) functionality.
6.1 Import/Export Rules 6.1 Import/Export Rules
skipping to change at line 365 skipping to change at line 396
between adjacent levels includes the Router_Address, Link and between adjacent levels includes the Router_Address, Link and
Node_Attribute top level TLV. Node_Attribute top level TLV.
The Opaque TE LSA import/export rules are governed as follows: The Opaque TE LSA import/export rules are governed as follows:
- If the export target interface is associated to the same area as - If the export target interface is associated to the same area as
the one associated with the import interface, the Opaque LSA MUST the one associated with the import interface, the Opaque LSA MUST
NOT imported. NOT imported.
- If a match is found between the Advertising Router ID in the - If a match is found between the Advertising Router ID in the
header of the received Opaque TE LSA and one of the Router ID header of the received Opaque TE LSA and one of the Router ID
belonging to the area of the export target interface, the Opaque belonging to the area of the export target interface, the Opaque
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires December 2006 7
LSA MUST NOT be imported. LSA MUST NOT be imported.
- If these two conditions are not met the Opaque TE LSA MAY be - If these two conditions are not met the Opaque TE LSA MAY be
imported and MAY be disseminated following the OSPF flooding imported and MAY be disseminated following the OSPF flooding
rules. rules.
The imported/exported content MAY be transformed e.g. filtered, as The imported/exported content MAY be transformed e.g. filtered, as
long as the resulting routing information is consistent. In long as the resulting routing information is consistent. In
particular, when more than one RC are bound to adjacent levels and particular, when more than one RC are bound to adjacent levels and
both are allowed to import/export routing information it is expected both are allowed to import/export routing information it is expected
that these transformation are performed in consistent manner. that these transformation are performed in consistent manner.
skipping to change at line 396 skipping to change at line 425
6.2.1 Upward Discovery and Selection 6.2.1 Upward Discovery and Selection
In order to discover RCs that are capable to disseminate routing In order to discover RCs that are capable to disseminate routing
information upward the routing hierarchy, the following Capability information upward the routing hierarchy, the following Capability
Descriptor bit [OSPF-CAP] are defined: Descriptor bit [OSPF-CAP] are defined:
- U bit: when set, this flag indicates that the RC is capable to - U bit: when set, this flag indicates that the RC is capable to
disseminate routing information upward the adjacent level. disseminate routing information upward the adjacent level.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires February 2007 8
In case of multiple RC are advertized with their U bit set, the RC In case of multiple RC are advertized with their U bit set, the RC
with the highest Router ID, among the RCs having set the U bit, with the highest Router ID, among the RCs having set the U bit,
SHOULD be selected as the RC for upward dissemination of routing SHOULD be selected as the RC for upward dissemination of routing
information. The other RCs MUST NOT participate in the upward information. The other RCs MUST NOT participate in the upward
dissemination of routing information as long as the opaque LSA dissemination of routing information as long as the opaque LSA
information corresponding to the highest Router ID RC does not reach information corresponding to the highest Router ID RC does not reach
MaxAge. This mechanism prevents from having more than one RC MaxAge. This mechanism prevents from having more than one RC
advertizing routing information upward the routing hierarchy. advertizing routing information upward the routing hierarchy.
Note that alternatively if this information cannot be discovered Note that alternatively if this information cannot be discovered
skipping to change at line 419 skipping to change at line 449
with a highest Router ID is introduced and advertizes its capability with a highest Router ID is introduced and advertizes its capability
to disseminate routing information upward the adjacent level (i.e. to disseminate routing information upward the adjacent level (i.e.
U-bit set). This hysteresis mechanism prevents from disturbing the U-bit set). This hysteresis mechanism prevents from disturbing the
upward routing information dissemination process in case e.g. of upward routing information dissemination process in case e.g. of
flapping. flapping.
6.2.2 Downward Discovery and Selection 6.2.2 Downward Discovery and Selection
The same discovery mechanism is used for selecting the RC taking in The same discovery mechanism is used for selecting the RC taking in
charge dissemination of routing information downward the hierarchy. charge dissemination of routing information downward the hierarchy.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires December 2006 8
However, an additional restriction MUST be applied such that the RC However, an additional restriction MUST be applied such that the RC
selection process takes into account that an upper level may be selection process takes into account that an upper level may be
adjacent to one or more lower (routing area) levels. For this adjacent to one or more lower (routing area) levels. For this
purpose a specific TLV indexing the (lower) area ID to which the purpose a specific TLV indexing the (lower) area ID to which the
RC's are capable to disseminate routing information is needed. RC's are capable to disseminate routing information is needed.
OSPF Downstream Associated Area ID TLV format carried in the OSPF OSPF Downstream Associated Area ID TLV format carried in the OSPF
router information LSA [OSPF-CAP] is defined. This TLV has the router information LSA [OSPF-CAP] is defined. This TLV has the
following format: following format:
skipping to change at line 450 skipping to change at line 478
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Associated Area ID | | Associated Area ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type (16 bits): identifies the TLV type Type (16 bits): identifies the TLV type
Length (16 bits): length of the value field in octets Length (16 bits): length of the value field in octets
Value (n x 32 bits): Associated Area ID whose value space is the Value (n x 32 bits): Associated Area ID whose value space is the
Area ID as defined in [RFC2328]. Area ID as defined in [RFC2328].
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires February 2007 9
Note that this information MUST be present when the D bit is set. To Note that this information MUST be present when the D bit is set. To
discover RCs that are capable to disseminate routing information discover RCs that are capable to disseminate routing information
downward the routing hierarchy, the following Capability Descriptor downward the routing hierarchy, the following Capability Descriptor
bit [OSPF-CAP] is defined, that MUST be advertised together with the bit [OSPF-CAP] is defined, that MUST be advertised together with the
OSPF Downstream Associated Area ID TLV: OSPF Downstream Associated Area ID TLV:
- D bit: when set, this flag indicates that the RC is capable to - D bit: when set, this flag indicates that the RC is capable to
disseminate routing information downward the adjacent level(s). disseminate routing information downward the adjacent level(s).
In case of multiple supporting RCs for the same Associated Area ID, In case of multiple supporting RCs for the same Associated Area ID,
skipping to change at line 472 skipping to change at line 501
routing information. The other RCs for the same Associated Area ID routing information. The other RCs for the same Associated Area ID
MUST not participate in the downward dissemination of routing MUST not participate in the downward dissemination of routing
information as long as the opaque LSA information corresponding to information as long as the opaque LSA information corresponding to
the highest Router ID RC does not reach MaxAge. This mechanism the highest Router ID RC does not reach MaxAge. This mechanism
prevents from having more than one RC advertizing routing prevents from having more than one RC advertizing routing
information downward the routing hierarchy. information downward the routing hierarchy.
Note that alternatively if this information cannot be discovered Note that alternatively if this information cannot be discovered
automatically, it MUST be manually configured. automatically, it MUST be manually configured.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires December 2006 9
The OSPF Router information opaque LSA (opaque type of 4, opaque ID The OSPF Router information opaque LSA (opaque type of 4, opaque ID
of 0) and its content in particular, the Router Informational of 0) and its content in particular, the Router Informational
Capabilities TLV [OSPF-CAP] and TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV Capabilities TLV [OSPF-CAP] and TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV
[OSPF-TE-CAP] MUST NOT be re-originated. [OSPF-TE-CAP] MUST NOT be re-originated.
6.3 Loop prevention 6.3 Loop prevention
When more than one RC are bound to adjacent levels of the hierarchy, When more than one RC are bound to adjacent levels of the hierarchy,
configured and selected to redistribute upward and downward the configured and selected to redistribute upward and downward the
routing information, a specific mechanism is required to avoid routing information, a specific mechanism is required to avoid
skipping to change at line 503 skipping to change at line 531
Note that configuration and operational simplification can be Note that configuration and operational simplification can be
obtained when both functionality are configured on a single RC (per obtained when both functionality are configured on a single RC (per
pair of adjacent level) fulfilling both roles. Figure 1 provides an pair of adjacent level) fulfilling both roles. Figure 1 provides an
example where such simplification applies. example where such simplification applies.
.................................................... ....................................................
. . . .
. RC_5 ------------ RC_6 . . RC_5 ------------ RC_6 .
. | | . . | | .
. | | Area Y . . | | Area Y .
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires February 2007 10
. ********* ********* . . ********* ********* .
............* RC_1a *.........* RC_2a *............. ............* RC_1a *.........* RC_2a *.............
* | * * | * __________* | * * | *
............* RC_1b *... ...* RC 2b *............. ............* RC_1b *... ...* RC 2b *.............
. ********* . . ********* . . ********* . . ********* .
. | . . | . . | . . | .
. Area Z | . . | Area X . . Area Z | . . | Area X .
. RC_3 . . RC_4 . . RC_3 . . RC_4 .
. . . . . . . .
........................ ......................... ........................ .........................
Figure 1. Hierarchical Environment (Example) Figure 1. Hierarchical Environment (Example)
In this case, the procedure described in this section MAY be In this case, the procedure described in this section MAY be
omitted, as long as these conditions are permanently guaranteed. In omitted, as long as these conditions are permanently guaranteed. In
all other cases, without exception, the procedure described in this all other cases, without exception, the procedure described in this
section MUST be applied. section MUST be applied.
6.3.1 Associated Area ID 6.3.1 Associated Area ID
Thus, we need some way of filtering the downward/upward re- Thus, we need some way of filtering the downward/upward re-
originated Opaque TE LSA. Per [RFC2370], the information contained originated Opaque TE LSA. Per [RFC2370], the information contained
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires December 2006 10
in Opaque LSAs may be used directly by OSPF. Henceforth, by adding in Opaque LSAs may be used directly by OSPF. Henceforth, by adding
the Area ID associated to the incoming routing information the loop the Area ID associated to the incoming routing information the loop
prevention problem can be solved. This additional information that prevention problem can be solved. This additional information that
MAY be carried in opaque LSAs including the Router Address TLV, in MAY be carried in opaque LSAs including the Router Address TLV, in
opaque LSAs including the Link TLV, and in opaque LSAs including the opaque LSAs including the Link TLV, and in opaque LSAs including the
Node Attribute TLV, is referred to as the Associated Area ID. Node Attribute TLV, is referred to as the Associated Area ID.
The format of the Associated Area ID TLV is defined as follows: The format of the Associated Area ID TLV is defined as follows:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
skipping to change at line 557 skipping to change at line 585
as defined in [RFC2328]. as defined in [RFC2328].
6.3.2 Processing 6.3.2 Processing
When fulfilling the rules detailed in Section 6.1 a given Opaque LSA When fulfilling the rules detailed in Section 6.1 a given Opaque LSA
is imported/exported downward or upward the routing hierarchy, the is imported/exported downward or upward the routing hierarchy, the
Associated Area ID TLV is added to the received opaque LSA list of Associated Area ID TLV is added to the received opaque LSA list of
TLVs such as to identify the area from where this routing TLVs such as to identify the area from where this routing
information has been received. information has been received.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires February 2007 11
When the RC adjacent to the lower or upper level routing level When the RC adjacent to the lower or upper level routing level
receives this opaque LSA, the following rule is applied (in addition receives this opaque LSA, the following rule is applied (in addition
the rule governing the import/export of opaque LSAs as detailed in the rule governing the import/export of opaque LSAs as detailed in
Section 6.1). Section 6.1).
- If a match is found between the Associated Area ID of the received - If a match is found between the Associated Area ID of the received
Opaque TE LSA and the Area ID belonging to the area of the export Opaque TE LSA and the Area ID belonging to the area of the export
target interface, the Opaque LSA MUST NOT be imported. target interface, the Opaque LSA MUST NOT be imported.
- Otherwise, this opaque LSA MAY be imported and disseminated - Otherwise, this opaque LSA MAY be imported and disseminated
skipping to change at line 578 skipping to change at line 607
flooding rules. flooding rules.
This mechanism ensures that no race condition occurs when the This mechanism ensures that no race condition occurs when the
conditions depicted in Figure 2 are met. conditions depicted in Figure 2 are met.
RC_5 ------------- RC_6 RC_5 ------------- RC_6
| | | |
| | Area Y | | Area Y
********* ********* ********* *********
..........* RC_1a *.........* RC_2a *............ ..........* RC_1a *.........* RC_2a *............
* | * * | * __________* | * * | *
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires December 2006 11
..........* RC_1b *.........* RC 2b *............ ..........* RC_1b *.........* RC 2b *............
********* ********* ********* *********
| | | |
| | Area X | | Area X
RC_3 --- . . . --- RC_4 RC_3 --- . . . --- RC_4
Figure 2. Race Condition Prevention (Example) Figure 2. Race Condition Prevention (Example)
Assume that RC_1b is configured for exporting routing information Assume that RC_1b is configured for exporting routing information
upward toward Area Y (upward the routing hierarchy) and that RC_2a upward toward Area Y (upward the routing hierarchy) and that RC_2a
skipping to change at line 611 skipping to change at line 638
6.4 Resiliency 6.4 Resiliency
OSPF creates adjacencies between neighboring routers for the purpose OSPF creates adjacencies between neighboring routers for the purpose
of exchanging routing information. After a neighbor has been of exchanging routing information. After a neighbor has been
discovered, bidirectional communication is ensured, and a routing discovered, bidirectional communication is ensured, and a routing
adjacency is formed between RCs, loss of communication may result in adjacency is formed between RCs, loss of communication may result in
partitioned areas. partitioned areas.
Consider for instance (see Figure 1.) the case where RC_1a and RC 1b Consider for instance (see Figure 1.) the case where RC_1a and RC 1b
is configured for exchanging routing information downward and upward is configured for exchanging routing information downward and upward
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires February 2007 12
Area Y, resp., and that RC_2a and RC_2b are not configured for Area Y, resp., and that RC_2a and RC_2b are not configured for
exchanging routing any routing information toward Area X. If the exchanging routing any routing information toward Area X. If the
communication between RC 1a and RC 2a is broken (due e.g. to RC 5 - communication between RC 1a and RC 2a is broken (due e.g. to RC 5 -
RC 6 communication failure), Area Y could be partitioned. RC 6 communication failure), Area Y could be partitioned.
In these conditions, it is RECOMMENDED that RC 2a to be re- In these conditions, it is RECOMMENDED that RC 2a to be re-
configurable such as to allow for exchanging routing information configurable such as to allow for exchanging routing information
downward to Area X. This reconfiguration MAY be performed manually downward to Area X. This reconfiguration MAY be performed manually
or automatically using the mechanism described in Section 6.2. or automatically using the mechanism described in Section 6.2.
Manual reconfiguration MUST be supported. Manual reconfiguration MUST be supported.
skipping to change at line 632 skipping to change at line 661
6.5 Neighbor Relationship and Routing Adjacency 6.5 Neighbor Relationship and Routing Adjacency
It is assumed that (point-to-point) IP control channels are It is assumed that (point-to-point) IP control channels are
provisioned/configured between RCs belonging to the same routing provisioned/configured between RCs belonging to the same routing
level. Provisioning/configuration techniques are outside the scope level. Provisioning/configuration techniques are outside the scope
of this document. of this document.
Once established, the OSPF Hello Protocol is responsible for Once established, the OSPF Hello Protocol is responsible for
establishing and maintaining neighbor relationships. This protocol establishing and maintaining neighbor relationships. This protocol
also ensures that communication between neighbors is bidirectional. also ensures that communication between neighbors is bidirectional.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires December 2006 12
Routing adjacency can subsequently be formed between RCs following Routing adjacency can subsequently be formed between RCs following
mechanisms defined in [RFC2328]. mechanisms defined in [RFC2328].
7. OSPFv2 Extensions 7. OSPFv2 Extensions
7.1 Compatibility 7.1 Compatibility
Extensions specified in this document are associated to the Extensions specified in this document are associated to the
Opaque TE LSA: Opaque TE LSA:
skipping to change at line 665 skipping to change at line 692
o) Node Attribute top level TLV (Type TBD): o) Node Attribute top level TLV (Type TBD):
- Node IPv4 Local Prefix sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV for IPv4 - Node IPv4 Local Prefix sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV for IPv4
reachability advertisement reachability advertisement
- Node IPv6 Local Prefix sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV for IPv6 - Node IPv6 Local Prefix sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV for IPv6
reachability advertisement reachability advertisement
- Local TE Router ID sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV for scoping - Local TE Router ID sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV for scoping
reachability per TE_Router ID reachability per TE_Router ID
- Associated Area ID sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV for loop avoidance - Associated Area ID sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV for loop avoidance
(see Section 6.3) (see Section 6.3)
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires February 2007 13
Opaque RI LSA: Opaque RI LSA:
o) Routing information dissemination o) Routing information dissemination
- U bit in Capability Descriptor TLV [OSPF-CAP] - U bit in Capability Descriptor TLV [OSPF-CAP]
- D bit in Capability Descriptor TLV [OSPF-CAP] - D bit in Capability Descriptor TLV [OSPF-CAP]
- Downstream Associated Area ID TLV in the OSPF Routing - Downstream Associated Area ID TLV in the OSPF Routing
Information LSA [OSPF-CAP] Information LSA [OSPF-CAP]
7.2 Scalability 7.2 Scalability
skipping to change at line 686 skipping to change at line 714
between adjacent areas SHOULD by default be limited to reachability. between adjacent areas SHOULD by default be limited to reachability.
In addition, several transformation such as prefix aggregation are In addition, several transformation such as prefix aggregation are
recommended when allowing decreasing the amount of information recommended when allowing decreasing the amount of information
imported/exported by a given RC without impacting consistency. imported/exported by a given RC without impacting consistency.
o) Routing information exchange upward/downward the hierarchy when o) Routing information exchange upward/downward the hierarchy when
involving TE attributes MUST be under strict policy control. Pacing involving TE attributes MUST be under strict policy control. Pacing
and min/max thresholds for triggered updates are strongly and min/max thresholds for triggered updates are strongly
recommended. recommended.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires December 2006 13
o) The number of routing levels MUST be maintained under strict o) The number of routing levels MUST be maintained under strict
policy control. policy control.
8. Acknowledgements 8. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dean Cheng, Acee Lindem, Pandian The authors would like to thank Dean Cheng, Acee Lindem, Pandian
Vijay, Alan Davey and Adrian Farrel for their useful comments and Vijay, Alan Davey and Adrian Farrel for their useful comments and
suggestions. suggestions.
9. References 9. References
skipping to change at line 717 skipping to change at line 744
ietf-ospf-cap-08.txt, November 2005. ietf-ospf-cap-08.txt, November 2005.
[RFC2026] S.Bradner, "The Internet Standards Process -- [RFC2026] S.Bradner, "The Internet Standards Process --
Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC2328] J.Moy, "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998. [RFC2328] J.Moy, "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998.
[RFC2370] R.Coltun, "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 2370, July [RFC2370] R.Coltun, "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 2370, July
1998. 1998.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires February 2007 14
[RFC2740] R.Coltun et al. "OSPF for IPv6", RFC 2740, December [RFC2740] R.Coltun et al. "OSPF for IPv6", RFC 2740, December
1999. 1999.
[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.
[RFC3477] K.Kompella et al. "Signalling Unnumbered Links in [RFC3477] K.Kompella et al. "Signalling Unnumbered Links in
Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, January 2003. (RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, January 2003.
skipping to change at line 740 skipping to change at line 768
[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.
[RFC3946] E.Mannie, and D.Papadimitriou, (Editors) et al., [RFC3946] E.Mannie, and D.Papadimitriou, (Editors) et al.,
"Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching Extensions "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching Extensions
for SONET and SDH Control," RFC 3946, October 2004. for SONET and SDH Control," RFC 3946, October 2004.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires December 2006 14
[RFC4202] Kompella, K. (Editor) et al., "Routing Extensions in [RFC4202] Kompella, K. (Editor) et al., "Routing Extensions in
Support of Generalized MPLS," RFC 4202, October 2005. Support of Generalized MPLS," RFC 4202, October 2005.
[RFC4203] Kompella, K. (Editor) et al., "OSPF Extensions in [RFC4203] Kompella, K. (Editor) et al., "OSPF Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)," RFC 4203, October 2005. (GMPLS)," RFC 4203, October 2005.
8.2 Informative References 8.2 Informative References
[ASON-EVAL] C.Hopps et al. "Evaluation of existing Routing Protocols [ASON-EVAL] C.Hopps et al. "Evaluation of existing Routing Protocols
skipping to change at line 768 skipping to change at line 795
(GMPLS) Routing for Automatically Switched Optical (GMPLS) Routing for Automatically Switched Optical
Network (ASON)," RFC 4258, November 2005. Network (ASON)," RFC 4258, November 2005.
For information on the availability of ITU Documents, please see For information on the availability of ITU Documents, please see
http://www.itu.int http://www.itu.int
[G.7715] ITU-T Rec. G.7715/Y.1306, "Architecture and [G.7715] ITU-T Rec. G.7715/Y.1306, "Architecture and
Requirements for the Automatically Switched Optical Requirements for the Automatically Switched Optical
Network (ASON)," June 2002. Network (ASON)," June 2002.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires February 2007 15
[G.7715.1] ITU-T Draft Rec. G.7715.1/Y.1706.1, "ASON Routing [G.7715.1] ITU-T Draft Rec. G.7715.1/Y.1706.1, "ASON Routing
Architecture and Requirements for Link State Protocols," Architecture and Requirements for Link State Protocols,"
November 2003. November 2003.
[G.8080] ITU-T Rec. G.8080/Y.1304, "Architecture for the [G.8080] ITU-T Rec. G.8080/Y.1304, "Architecture for the
Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)," Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON),"
November 2001 (and Revision, January 2003). November 2001 (and Revision, January 2003).
9. Author's Addresses 9. Author's Addresses
Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel) Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel)
Francis Wellensplein 1, Francis Wellensplein 1,
B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
Phone: +32 3 2408491 Phone: +32 3 2408491
EMail: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be EMail: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires December 2006 15 D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires February 2007 16
Appendix 1: ASON Terminology Appendix 1: ASON Terminology
This document makes use of the following terms: This document makes use of the following terms:
Administrative domain: (see Recommendation G.805) for the purposes of Administrative domain: (see Recommendation G.805) for the purposes of
[G7715.1] an administrative domain represents the extent of resources [G7715.1] an administrative domain represents the extent of resources
which belong to a single player such as a network operator, a service which belong to a single player such as a network operator, a service
provider, or an end-user. Administrative domains of different players provider, or an end-user. Administrative domains of different players
do not overlap amongst themselves. do not overlap amongst themselves.
skipping to change at line 839 skipping to change at line 867
control in a consistent manner. Management domains can be disjoint, control in a consistent manner. Management domains can be disjoint,
contained or overlapping. As such the resources within an contained or overlapping. As such the resources within an
administrative domain can be distributed into several possible administrative domain can be distributed into several possible
overlapping management domains. The same resource can therefore overlapping management domains. The same resource can therefore
belong to several management domains simultaneously, but a management belong to several management domains simultaneously, but a management
domain shall not cross the border of an administrative domain. domain shall not cross the border of an administrative domain.
Subnetwork Point (SNP): The SNP is a control plane abstraction that Subnetwork Point (SNP): The SNP is a control plane abstraction that
represents an actual or potential transport plane resource. SNPs (in represents an actual or potential transport plane resource. SNPs (in
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires December 2006 16 D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires February 2007 17
different subnetwork partitions) may represent the same transport different subnetwork partitions) may represent the same transport
resource. A one-to-one correspondence should not be assumed. resource. A one-to-one correspondence should not be assumed.
Subnetwork Point Pool (SNPP): A set of SNPs that are grouped together Subnetwork Point Pool (SNPP): A set of SNPs that are grouped together
for the purposes of routing. for the purposes of routing.
Termination Connection Point (TCP): A TCP represents the output of a Termination Connection Point (TCP): A TCP represents the output of a
Trail Termination function or the input to a Trail Termination Sink Trail Termination function or the input to a Trail Termination Sink
function. function.
Transport plane: provides bi-directional or unidirectional transfer Transport plane: provides bi-directional or unidirectional transfer
of user information, from one location to another. It can also of user information, from one location to another. It can also
provide transfer of some control and network management information. provide transfer of some control and network management information.
The Transport Plane is layered; it is equivalent to the Transport The Transport Plane is layered; it is equivalent to the Transport
Network defined in G.805 Recommendation. Network defined in G.805 Recommendation.
User Network Interface (UNI): interfaces are located between protocol User Network Interface (UNI): interfaces are located between protocol
controllers between a user and a control domain. Note: there is no controllers between a user and a control domain. Note: there is no
routing function associated with a UNI reference point. routing function associated with a UNI reference point.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires December 2006 17 D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires February 2007 18
Appendix 2: ASON Routing Terminology Appendix 2: ASON Routing Terminology
This document makes use of the following terms: This document makes use of the following terms:
Routing Area (RA): a RA represents a partition of the data plane and Routing Area (RA): a RA represents a partition of the data plane and
its identifier is used within the control plane as the representation its identifier is used within the control plane as the representation
of this partition. Per [G.8080] a RA is defined by a set of sub- of this partition. Per [G.8080] a RA is defined by a set of sub-
networks, the links that interconnect them, and the interfaces networks, the links that interconnect them, and the interfaces
representing the ends of the links exiting that RA. A RA may contain representing the ends of the links exiting that RA. A RA may contain
skipping to change at line 904 skipping to change at line 932
Link Resource Manager (LRM): supplies all the relevant component and Link Resource Manager (LRM): supplies all the relevant component and
TE link information to the RC. It informs the RC about any state TE link information to the RC. It informs the RC about any state
changes of the link resources it controls. changes of the link resources it controls.
Protocol Controller (PC): handles protocol specific message exchanges Protocol Controller (PC): handles protocol specific message exchanges
according to the reference point over which the information is according to the reference point over which the information is
exchanged (e.g. E-NNI, I-NNI), and internal exchanges with the RC. exchanged (e.g. E-NNI, I-NNI), and internal exchanges with the RC.
The PC function is protocol dependent. The PC function is protocol dependent.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires December 2006 18 D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires February 2007 19
Full Copyright Statement Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). 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.
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
REPRESENTSOR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE REPRESENTSOR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE
skipping to change at line 944 skipping to change at line 972
of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository
at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org. ipr@ietf.org.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires December 2006 19 D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires February 2007 20
 End of changes. 42 change blocks. 
47 lines changed or deleted 75 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.33. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/