INTERNET-DRAFT K. Pithewan
I. Hussain
R. Valiveti
Intended Status: Proposed Standard Infinera
Expires: January 7, 2017 July 6, 2016
FlexE GMPLS Routing Extension
draft-pithewan-ccamp-flexe-routing-extensions-00
Abstract
This document specifies routing extensions in support of carrying
link state information for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) for Flex Ethernet.
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
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/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Copyright and License Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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
K. Pithewan Expires January 7, 2017 [Page 1]
INTERNET DRAFT FlexE GMPLS Routing Extension July 6, 2016
(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 Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1 Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. FlexE TE Link . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Flex link property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. OSPF TE-LSA Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Interface Switch Capability Descriptor . . . . . . . . . . 5
3 Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4 IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
K. Pithewan Expires January 7, 2017 [Page 2]
INTERNET DRAFT FlexE GMPLS Routing Extension July 6, 2016
1 Introduction
FlexE implementation agreement version 1.0 as specified by OIF
supports flexible size Ethernet interfaces supported by one or more
Ethernet PHY(s). FlexE interface represents the aggregate bandwidth
of underlying PHY(s). In order to compute a path for a FlexE LSP that
spans over one or more FlexE links, the bandwidth of FlexE interface
needs to be advertised and flooded in routing domain. This document
specifies the OSPF routing extension for FlexE interfaces and enables
GMPLS control plane to flood FlexE link bandwidth in routing domain.
1.1 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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. FlexE TE Link
FlexE mechanism operates using calendar that assigns 66bit block
positions to sub-calendars on each PHY of the FlexE group. The
calendar has a granularity of 5G, and has a length of 20 slots per
100G of FlexE group capacity. Two calendar configurations are
supported, referred as "A" and "B". At any given time, one of the
calendar configurations is used for mapping the FlexE clients into
the FlexE group. The two calendar configurations are provided to
facilitate reconfiguration. To add or remove FlexE clients from the
FlexE group, the clients are added to (or removed from) the inactive
calendar and configuration is switched to make it effective. The
effective bandwidth is represented by active calendar.
The effective bandwidth between two FlexE group (or interfaces) is
represented by FlexE TE Link.
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+
|FlexE | |FlexE | |FlexE |
|Switch |<- FlexE Link->|Switch |<- FlexE Link->|Switch |
| A | | B | | C |
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+
|<-- TE-Link -->| |<-- TE-Link -->|
Figure-1: FlexE TE-Link
K. Pithewan Expires January 7, 2017 [Page 3]
INTERNET DRAFT FlexE GMPLS Routing Extension July 6, 2016
In Figure-1 FlexE Switch A,B,C operates in FlexE aware mode (i.e.,
these switches terminate FlexE shim) and are capable of multiplexing
and de-multiplexing FlexE group. In other words, the FlexE switches
instantiate the FlexE Shim functions (as specified in the OIF IA) at
each FlexE interface. The mux-demux capability of FlexE switch allows
it to select time-slots for FlexE LSP at each hop. FlexE Link (TE-
Link) exist between each FlexE aware switch.
+-------+ <------------ FlexE Link------------->+-------+
|FlexE | +-------+ |FlexE |
|Switch | |unaware| |Switch |
| A | | (B) | | C |
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+
|<-------------- TE-Link -------------->|
Figure-2: FlexE TE-Link
In Figure-2 A and C are FlexE aware switches and B is unaware. In
this case, FlexE group is terminated by the switch A and C.
Therefore, TE-link will also exist between A and C. BW modeled by TE-
link and switch capability of FlexE aware switch is used for end-to-
end path calculation for FleXE LSP.
3. Flex link property
FlexE group realized by the FlexE SHIM needs to have same number of
components (i.e., grouped PHYs), number of slots and slot granularity
on both ends.
The bandwidth of a TE Link is represented by number of slots and size
of the slots. Theoretically, it is conceivable that a FlexE TE link
could be constructed out of heterogeneous collection of Ethernet
PHY(s), with different rates, which may result in a FlexE TE Link
bandwidth realized by multiple sets of slots where each set may have
different granularity/size. However, OIF agreement doesn't support
different granularity/size, hence, it is out of scope for this
document.
4. OSPF TE-LSA Extension
This section describes the OSPF TE-LSA Extensions to support
K. Pithewan Expires January 7, 2017 [Page 4]
INTERNET DRAFT FlexE GMPLS Routing Extension July 6, 2016
bandwidth encoding for FlexE TE-Links.
4.1. Interface Switch Capability Descriptor
The Interface Switching Capability Descriptor (ISCD) describes
switching capability of an interface [RFC 4202]. The Switching
capability is essentially described by
- Interface Switching Capability
- Encoding
- Reservable Bandwidth
For FlexE interfaces this proposal uses L2 Switching Capability
(L2SC) for Switching Type and proposes new encoding type
Value Type
----- ----
15 Flex Ethernet (FlexE)
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Switching Cap | Encoding | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 3 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 5 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 6 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 7 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FlexE - Switch Capability Specific Information |
| (variable length) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Nodes advertising FlexE switching BW for for its links must use
Switching Type and Encoding values as follows:
K. Pithewan Expires January 7, 2017 [Page 5]
INTERNET DRAFT FlexE GMPLS Routing Extension July 6, 2016
Switching Type :
L2SC [as defined in RFC4202]
Encoding Type :
FlexE [as defined in this document]
Max LSP Bandwidth :
The FlexE SHIM nominal rate (in kbps)
Reservable Bandwidth is advertised as part of Switch Capability
Specific Information which is variable field in ISCD. Unused or
available or reservable bandwidth is expressed as combination of
[Number of Slots, Granularity]
As per OIF agreement Granularity has only one value i.e. 5G. In
future additional values may be defined.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type=1 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Granularity | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Available Slots at priority 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Available Slots at priority 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Available Slots at priority 2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Available Slots at priority 3 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Available Slots at priority 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Available Slots at priority 5 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Available Slots at priority 6 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Available Slots at priority 7 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Granularity : This is 8 bit field and takes values like Enum. Current
OIF agreement only allow 5G granularity. In future, this field can
have more values, as further granularity are defined.
K. Pithewan Expires January 7, 2017 [Page 6]
INTERNET DRAFT FlexE GMPLS Routing Extension July 6, 2016
Value - Granularity
-----------------------
1 - 5G
Reserved : This field is reserved and marked as 0.
Available Slots : This field (32 bits) indicates the maximum number
of slots available at priority 'p' on active calendar of the TE
Link.
K. Pithewan Expires January 7, 2017 [Page 7]
INTERNET DRAFT FlexE GMPLS Routing Extension July 6, 2016
3 Security Considerations
TBD
4 IANA Considerations
New Encoding type is defined in this document for Flex Ethernet.
Proposed value is 15
5 References
5.1 Normative References
[RFC4202] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Routing Extensions in Support
of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)"
[RFC4203] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "OSPF Extensions in Support
of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)"
[OIFFLEXE1] OIF, "FLex Ethernet Implementation Agreement Version 1.0
(OIF-FLEXE-01.0)", March 2016.
5.2 Informative References
Authors' Addresses
Khuzema Pithewan
169 W Java Dr, Sunnyvale, CA, USA
EMail: kpithewan@infinera.com
Iftekhar Hussain
169 W Java Dr, Sunnyvale, CA, USA
EMail: ihussain@infinera.com
Radha Valiveti
169 W Java Dr, Sunnyvale, CA, USA
EMail: rvaliveti@infinera.com
K. Pithewan Expires January 7, 2017 [Page 8]