





Network Working Group                              D. Papadimitriou, Ed.
Request for Comments: 4652                                       Alcatel
Category: Informational                                            L.Ong
                                                                   Ciena
                                                               J. Sadler
                                                                 Tellabs
                                                                 S. Shew
                                                                  Nortel
                                                                 D. Ward
                                                                   Cisco
                                                            October 2006


           Evaluation of Existing Routing Protocols against
    Automatic Switched Optical Network (ASON) Routing Requirements

Status of This Memo

   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
   memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

Abstract

   The Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) suite of protocols has been defined to
   control different switching technologies as well as different
   applications.  These include support for requesting TDM connections
   including Synchronous Optical Network/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy
   (SONET/SDH) and Optical Transport Networks (OTNs).

   This document provides an evaluation of the IETF Routing Protocols
   against the routing requirements for an Automatically Switched
   Optical Network (ASON) as defined by ITU-T.














Papadimitriou, et al.        Informational                      [Page 1]

RFC 4652      Evaluation of Routing Protocols against ASON  October 2006


1.  Introduction

   Certain capabilities are needed to support the ITU-T Automatically
   Switched Optical Network (ASON) control plane architecture as defined
   in [G.8080].

   [RFC4258] details the routing requirements for the GMPLS routing
   suite of protocols to support the capabilities and functionality of
   ASON control planes identified in [G.7715] and in [G.7715.1].  The
   ASON routing architecture provides for a conceptual reference
   architecture, with definition of functional components and common
   information elements to enable end-to-end routing in the case of
   protocol heterogeneity and to facilitate management of ASON networks.
   This description is only conceptual: no physical partitioning of
   these functions is implied.

   However, [RFC4258] does not address GMPLS routing protocol
   applicability or capabilities.  This document evaluates the IETF
   Routing Protocols against the requirements identified in [RFC4258].
   The result of this evaluation is detailed in Section 5.  Close
   examination of applicability scenarios and the result of the
   evaluation of these scenarios are provided in Section 6.

   ASON (Routing) terminology sections are provided in Appendices A and
   B.

2.  Conventions Used in This Document

   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].

   The reader is expected to be familiar with the terminology introduced
   in [RFC4258].

3.  Contributors

   This document is the result of the CCAMP Working Group ASON Routing
   Solution design team's joint effort.

      Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel, Team Leader and Editor)
         EMail: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be
      Chris Hopps (Cisco)
         EMail: chopps@rawdofmt.org
      Lyndon Ong (Ciena Corporation)
         EMail: lyong@ciena.com
      Jonathan Sadler (Tellabs)
         EMail: jonathan.sadler@tellabs.com



Papadimitriou, et al.        Informational                      [Page 2]

RFC 4652      Evaluation of Routing Protocols against ASON  October 2006


      Stephen Shew (Nortel Networks)
         EMail: sdshew@nortel.com
      Dave Ward (Cisco)
         EMail: dward@cisco.com

4.  Requirements: Overview

   The following functionality is expected from GMPLS routing protocols
   to instantiate the ASON hierarchical routing architecture realization
   (see [G.7715] and [G.7715.1]):

   - Routing Areas (RAs) shall be uniquely identifiable within a
     carrier's network, each having a unique RA Identifier (RA ID)
     within the carrier's network.

   - Within a RA (one level), the routing protocol shall support
     dissemination of hierarchical routing information (including
     summarized routing information for other levels) in support of an
     architecture of multiple hierarchical levels of RAs; the number of
     hierarchical RA levels to be supported by a routing protocol is
     implementation specific.

   - The routing protocol shall support routing information based on a
     common set of information elements as defined in [G.7715] and
     [G.7715.1], divided between attributes pertaining to links and
     abstract nodes (each representing either a sub-network or simply a
     node).  [G.7715] recognizes that the manner in which the routing
     information is represented and exchanged will vary with the routing
     protocol used.

   - The routing protocol shall converge such that the distributed
     Routing DataBases (RDB) become synchronized after a period of time.

   To support dissemination of hierarchical routing information, the
   routing protocol must deliver:

   - Processing of routing information exchanged between adjacent levels
     of the hierarchy (i.e., Level N+1 and N), including reachability
     and (upon policy decision) summarized topology information.

   - Self-consistent information at the receiving level resulting from
     any transformation (filter, summarize, etc.) and forwarding of
     information from one Routing Controller (RC) to RC(s) at different
     levels when multiple RCs are bound to a single RA.

   - A mechanism to prevent re-introduction of information propagated
     into the Level N RA's RC back to the adjacent level RA's RC from
     which this information has been initially received.



Papadimitriou, et al.        Informational                      [Page 3]

RFC 4652      Evaluation of Routing Protocols against ASON  October 2006


   Note: The number of hierarchical levels to be supported is routing
   protocol specific and reflects a containment relationship.

   Reachability information may be advertised either as a set of UNI
   Transport Resource address prefixes, or as a set of associated
   Subnetwork Point Pool (SNPP) link IDs/SNPP link ID prefixes, assigned
   and selected consistently in their applicability scope.  The formats
   of the control plane identifiers in a protocol realization are
   implementation specific.  Use of a routing protocol within a RA
   should not restrict the choice of routing protocols for use in other
   RAs (child or parent).

   As ASON does not restrict the control plane architecture choice,
   either a co-located architecture or a physically separated
   architecture may be used.  A collection of links and nodes, such as a
   sub-network or RA, must be able to represent itself to the wider
   network as a single logical entity with only its external links
   visible to the topology database.

5.  Evaluation

   This section evaluates support of existing IETF routing protocols
   with respect to the requirements summarized from [RFC4258] in Section
   4.  Candidate routing protocols are Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP)
   (OSPF and Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS)) and
   BGP.  The latter is not addressed in the current version of this
   document.  BGP is not considered a candidate protocol mainly because
   of the following reasons:

   - Non-support of TE information exchange.  Each BGP router advertises
     only its path to each destination in its vector for loop avoidance,
     with no costs or hop counts; each BGP router knows little about
     network topology.

   - BGP can only advertise routes that are eligible for use (local RIB)
     or routing loops can occur; there is one best route per prefix, and
     that is the route that is advertised.

   - BGP is not widely deployed in optical equipment and networks.

5.1.  Terminology and Identification

   - Pi is a physical (bearer/data/transport plane) node.

   - Li is a logical control plane entity that is associated to a single
     data plane (abstract) node.  The Li is identified by the TE
     Router_ID.  The latter is a control plane identifier defined as
     follows:



Papadimitriou, et al.        Informational                      [Page 4]

RFC 4652      Evaluation of Routing Protocols against ASON  October 2006


        [RFC3630]: Router_Address (top level) TLV of the Type 1 TE LSA
        [RFC3784]: Traffic Engineering Router ID TLV (Type 134)

     Note: This document does not define what the TE Router ID is.  This
     document simply states the use of the TE Router ID to identify Li.
     [RFC3630] and [RFC3784] provide the definitions.

   - Ri is a logical control plane entity that is associated to a
     control plane "router".  The latter is the source for topology
     information that it generates and shares with other control plane
     "routers".  The Ri is identified by the (advertising) Router_ID

        [RFC2328]: Router ID (32-bit)
        [RFC1195]: IS-IS System ID (48-bit)

     The Router_ID, which is represented by Ri and which corresponds to
     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.  Note
     that, in the ASON context, an arrangement consisting of multiple
     Ris announcing routing information related to a single Li is under
     evaluation.

   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.
   Thus, the routing protocol MUST be able to advertise multiple TE
   Router IDs (see Section 5.7).

   Note: Si is a control plane signaling function associated with one or
   more Lis.  This document does not assume any specific constraint on
   the relationship between Si and Li.  This document does not discuss
   issues of control plane accessibility for the signaling function, and
   it makes no assumptions about how control plane accessibility to the
   Si is achieved.

5.2.  RA Identification

   G.7715.1 notes some necessary characteristics for RA identifiers,
   e.g., that they may provide scope for the Ri, and that they must be
   provisioned to be unique within an administrative domain.  The RA ID
   format itself is allowed to be derived from any global address space.
   Provisioning of RA IDs for uniqueness is outside the scope of this
   document.





Papadimitriou, et al.        Informational                      [Page 5]

RFC 4652      Evaluation of Routing Protocols against ASON  October 2006


   Under these conditions, GMPLS link state routing protocols provide
   the capability for RA Identification without further modification.

5.3.  Routing Information Exchange

   In this section, the focus is on routing information exchange Ri
   entities (through routing adjacencies) within a single hierarchical
   level.  Routing information mapping between levels require specific
   processing (see Section 5.5).

   The control plane does not transport Pi identifiers, as these are
   data plane addresses for which the Li/Pi mapping is kept (link)
   local; see, for instance the transport LMP document [RFC4394] where
   such an exchange is described.  Example: The transport plane
   identifier is the Pi (the identifier assigned to the physical
   element) that could be, for instance, "666B.F999.AF10.222C", whereas
   the control plane identifier is the Li (the identifier assigned by
   the control plane), which could be, for instance, "192.0.2.1".

   The control plane exchanges the control plane identifier information,
   but not the transport plane identifier information (i.e., not
   "666B.F999.AF10.222C", but only "192.0.2.1").  The mapping Li/Pi is
   kept local.  So, when the Si receives a control plane message
   requesting the use of "192.0.2.1", Si knows locally that this
   information refers to the data plane entity identified by the
   transport plane identifier "666B.F999.AF10.222C".

   Note also that the Li and Pi addressing spaces may be identical.

   The control plane carries:

   1) its view of the data plane link end-points and other link
      connection end-points.

   2) the identifiers scoped by the Lis, i.e., referred to as an
      associated IPv4/IPv6 addressing space.  Note that these
      identifiers may be either bundled TE link addresses or component
      link addresses.

   3) when using OSPF or ISIS as the IGP in support of traffic
      engineering, [RFC3477] RECOMMENDS that the Li value (referred to
      the "LSR Router ID") be set to the TE Router ID value.

   Therefore, OSPF and IS-IS carry sufficient node identification
   information without further modification.






Papadimitriou, et al.        Informational                      [Page 6]

RFC 4652      Evaluation of Routing Protocols against ASON  October 2006


5.3.1.  Link Attributes

   [RFC4258] provides a list of link attributes and characteristics that
   need to be advertised by a routing protocol.  All TE link attributes
   and characteristics are currently handled by OSPF and IS-IS (see
   Table 1) with the exception of Local Adaptation support.  Indeed,
   GMPLS routing does not currently consider the use of dedicated TE
   link attribute(s) to describe the cross/inter-layer relationships.

   In addition, the representation of bandwidth requires further
   consideration.  GMPLS Routing defines an Interface Switching
   Capability Descriptor (ISCD) that delivers information about the
   (maximum/ minimum) bandwidth per priority of which an LSP can make
   use.  This information is usually used in combination with the
   Unreserved Bandwidth sub-TLV that provides the amount of bandwidth
   not yet reserved on a TE link.

   In the ASON context, other bandwidth accounting representations are
   possible, e.g., in terms of a set of tuples <signal_type; number of
   unallocated timeslots>.  The latter representation may also require
   definition of additional signal types (from those defined in
   [RFC3946]) to represent support of contiguously concatenated signals,
   i.e., STS-(3xN)c SPE / VC-4-Nc, N = 4, 16, 64, 256.

   However, the method proposed in [RFC4202] is the most straightforward
   without requiring any bandwidth accounting change from an LSR
   perspective (in particular, when the ISCD sub-TLV information is
   combined with the information provided by the Unreserved Bandwidth
   sub-TLV).






















Papadimitriou, et al.        Informational                      [Page 7]

RFC 4652      Evaluation of Routing Protocols against ASON  October 2006


   Link Characteristics     GMPLS OSPF
   -----------------------  ----------
   Local SNPP link ID       Link-local part of the TE link identifier
                            sub-TLV [RFC4203]
   Remote SNPP link ID      Link remote part of the TE link identifier
                            sub-TLV [RFC4203]
   Signal Type              Technology specific part of the Interface
                            Switching Capability Descriptor sub-TLV
                            [RFC4203]
   Link Weight              TE metric sub-TLV [RFC3630]
   Resource Class           Administrative Group sub-TLV [RFC3630]
   Local Connection Types   Switching Capability field part of the
                            Interface Switching Capability Descriptor
                            sub-TLV [RFC4203]
   Link Capacity            Unreserved bandwidth sub-TLV [RFC3630]
                            Max LSP Bandwidth part of the Interface
                            Switching Capability Descriptor sub-TLV
                            [RFC4203]
   Link Availability        Link Protection sub-TLV [RFC4203]
   Diversity Support        SRLG sub-TLV [RFC4203]
   Local Adaptation support See above

                Table 1.  TE link attributes in GMPLS OSPF-TE

   Link Characteristics     GMPLS IS-IS
   -----------------------  -----------
   Local SNPP link ID       Link-local part of the TE link identifier
                            sub-TLV [RFC4205]
   Remote SNPP link ID      Link-remote part of the TE link identifier
                            sub-TLV [RFC4205]
   Signal Type              Technology specific part of the Interface
                            Switching Capability Descriptor sub-TLV
                            [RFC4205]
   Link Weight              TE Default metric [RFC3784]
   Resource Class           Administrative Group sub-TLV [RFC3784]
   Local Connection Types   Switching Capability field part of the
                            Interface Switching Capability Descriptor
                            sub-TLV [RFC4205]
   Link Capacity            Unreserved bandwidth sub-TLV [RFC3784]
                            Max LSP Bandwidth part of the Interface
                            Switching Capability Descriptor sub-TLV
                            [RFC4205]
   Link Availability        Link Protection sub-TLV [RFC4205]
   Diversity Support        SRLG sub-TLV [RFC4205]
   Local Adaptation support See above

               Table 2.  TE link attributes in GMPLS IS-IS-TE




Papadimitriou, et al.        Informational                      [Page 8]

RFC 4652      Evaluation of Routing Protocols against ASON  October 2006


   Note: Link Attributes represent layer resource capabilities and
   their utilization i.e. the IGP should be able to advertise these
   attributes on a per-layer basis.

5.3.2.  Node Attributes

   Node attributes are the "Logical Node ID" (described in Section 5.1)
   and the reachability information described in Section 5.3.3.

5.3.3.  Reachability Information

   Advertisement of reachability can be achieved using the techniques
   described in [OSPF-NODE], where the set of local addresses are
   carried in an OSPF TE LSA node attribute TLV (a specific sub-TLV is
   defined per address family, e.g., IPv4 and IPv6).  However,
   [OSPF-NODE] is restricted to advertisement of Host addresses and not
   prefixes, and therefore it requires enhancement (see below).  Thus,
   in order to advertise blocks of reachable address prefixes a
   summarization mechanism is additionally required.  This mechanism may
   take the form of a prefix length (which indicates the number of
   significant bits in the prefix) or a network mask.

   A similar mechanism does not exist for IS-IS.  Moreover, the Extended
   IP Reachability TLV [RFC3784] focuses on IP reachable end-points
   (terminating points), as its name indicates.

5.4.  Routing Information Abstraction

   G.7715.1 describes both static and dynamic methods for abstraction of
   routing information for advertisement at a different level of the
   routing hierarchy.  However, the information that is advertised
   continues to be in the form of link and node advertisements
   consistent with the link state routing protocol used at that level.
   Hence, no specific capabilities need to be added to the routing
   protocol beyond the ability to locally identify when routing
   information originates outside of a particular RA.

   The methods used for abstraction of routing information are outside
   the scope of GMPLS routing protocols.

5.5.  Dissemination of Routing Information in Support of Multiple
      Hierarchal Levels of RAs

   G.7715.1 does not define specific mechanisms to support multiple
   hierarchical levels of RAs beyond the ability to support abstraction
   as discussed above.  However, if RCs bound to adjacent levels of the
   RA hierarchy are allowed to redistribute routing information in both




Papadimitriou, et al.        Informational                      [Page 9]

RFC 4652      Evaluation of Routing Protocols against ASON  October 2006


   directions between adjacent levels of the hierarchy without any
   additional mechanisms, they would not be able to determine looping of
   routing information.

   To prevent this looping of routing information between levels, IS-IS
   [RFC1195] allows only advertising routing information upward in the
   level hierarchy and disallows the advertising of routing information
   downward in the hierarchy.  [RFC2966] defines the up/down bit to
   allow advertising downward in the hierarchy the "IP Internal
   Reachability Information" TLV (Type 128) and "IP External
   Reachability Information" TLV (Type 130).  [RFC3784] extends its
   applicability for the "Extended IP Reachability" TLV (Type 135).
   Using this mechanism, the up/down bit is set to 0 when routing
   information is first injected into IS-IS.  If routing information is
   advertised from a higher level to a lower level, the up/down bit is
   set to 1, indicating that it has traveled down the hierarchy.
   Routing information that has the up/down bit set to 1 may only be
   advertised down the hierarchy, i.e., to lower levels.  This mechanism
   applies independently of the number of levels.  However, this
   mechanism does not apply to the "Extended IS Reachability" TLV (Type
   22) used to propagate the summarized topology (see Section 5.3),
   traffic engineering information as listed in Table 1, as well as
   reachability information (see Section 5.3.3).

   OSPFv2 [RFC2328] prevents inter-area routes (which are learned from
   area 0) from being passed back to area 0.  However, GMPLS makes use
   of Type 10 (area-local scope) LSAs to propagate TE information
   [RFC3630], [RFC4202].  Type 10 Opaque LSAs are not flooded beyond the
   borders of their associated area.  It is therefore necessary to have
   a means by which Type 10 Opaque LSA may carry the information that a
   particular piece of routing information has been learned from a
   higher-level RC when propagated to a lower-level RC.  Any downward RC
   from this level, which receives an LSA with this information would
   omit the information in this LSA and thus not re-introduce this
   information back into a higher-level RC.

5.6.  Routing Protocol Convergence

   Link state protocols have been designed to propagate detected
   topological changes (such as interface failures and link attributes
   modification).  The convergence period is short and involves a
   minimum of routing information exchange.

   Therefore, existing routing protocol convergence involves mechanisms
   that are sufficient for ASON applications.






Papadimitriou, et al.        Informational                     [Page 10]

RFC 4652      Evaluation of Routing Protocols against ASON  October 2006


5.7.  Routing Information Scoping

   The routing protocol MUST support a single Ri advertising on behalf
   of more than one Li.  Since each Li is identified by a unique TE
   Router ID, the routing protocol MUST be able to advertise multiple TE
   Router IDs.  That is, for [RFC3630], multiple Router Addresses and
   for [RFC3784] multiple Traffic Engineering Router Ids.

   The Link sub-TLV that is currently part of the top level Link TLV
   associates the link to the Router_ID.  However, having the Ri
   advertising on behalf of multiple Lis creates the following issue, as
   there is no longer a 1:1 relationship between the Router_ID and the
   TE Router_ID, but a 1:N relationship is possible (see Section 5.1).
   As the link-local and link-remote (unnumbered) ID association may not
   be unique per abstract node (per Li unicity), the advertisement needs
   to indicate the remote Lj value and rely on the initial discovery
   process to retrieve the {Li;Lj} relationship(s).  In 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 local Li.
   Therefore, the routing protocol MUST be able to disambiguate the
   advertised TE links so that they can be associated with the correct
   TE Router ID.

   Moreover, when the Ri advertises on behalf multiple Lis, the routing
   protocol MUST be able to disambiguate the advertised reachability
   information (see Section 5.3.3) so that it can be associated with the
   correct TE Router ID.

6.  Evaluation Scenarios

   The evaluation scenarios are the following; they are respectively
   referred to as cases 1, 2, 3, and 4.

   In Figure 1, below,

   - R3 represents an LSR with all components collocated.
   - R2 shows how the "router" component may be disjoint from the node.
   - R1 shows how a single "router" may manage multiple nodes.













Papadimitriou, et al.        Informational                     [Page 11]

RFC 4652      Evaluation of Routing Protocols against ASON  October 2006


                -------------------     -------
               |R1                 |   |R2     |
               |                   |   |       |    ------
               |  L1    L2    L3   |   |   L4  |   |R3    |
               |   :     :     :   |   |   :   |   |      |
               |   :     :     :   |   |   :   |   |  L5  |
   Control      ---+-----+-----+---     ---+---    |   :  |
   Plane           :     :     :           :       |   :  |
   ----------------+-----+-----+-----------+-------+---+--+-
   Data            :     :     :           :       |   :  |
   Plane          --     :    --          --       |  --  |
             ----|P1|--------|P3|--------|P4|------+-|P5|-+-
                  -- \   :  / --          --       |  --  |
                      \ -- /                       |      |
                       |P2|                         ------
                        --

                Figure 1.  Evaluation Cases 1, 2, and 3

   Case 1 as represented refers either to direct links between edges or
   to "logical links" as shown in Figure 2 (or any combination of them).

                   ------                        ------
                  |      |                      |      |
                  |  L1  |                      |  L2  |
                  |  :   |                      |  :   |
                  |  : R1|                      |  : R2|
   Control Plane   --+---                        --+---
   Elements          :                             :
   ------------------+-----------------------------+------------------
   Data Plane        :                             :
   Elements          :                             :
                 ----+-----------------------------+-----
                |    :                             :     |
                |   ---            ---            ---    |
                |  |   |----------| P |----------|   |   |
             ---+--|   |           ---           |   |---+---
                |  |   |                         |   |   |
                |  | P1|-------------------------| P2|   |
                |   ---                           ---    |
                 ----------------------------------------

                    Figure 2.  Case 1 with Logical Links

   Another case (referred to as Case 4) is constituted by the Abstract
   Node as represented in Figure 3.  There is no internal structure
   associated (externally) to the abstract node.




Papadimitriou, et al.        Informational                     [Page 12]

RFC 4652      Evaluation of Routing Protocols against ASON  October 2006


                       --------------
                      |R4            |
                      |              |
                      |      L6      |
                      |       :      |
                      |    ......    |
                       ---:------:---
   Control Plane          :      :
                   +------+------+------+
   Data Plane             :      :
                       ---:------:---
                      |P8 :      :   |
                      |  --      --  |
                    --+-|P |----|P |-+--
                      |  --      --  |
                       --------------

                      Figure 3.  Case 4: Abstract Node

   Note: the "signaling function" referred to as Si, i.e., the control
   plane entity that processes the signaling messages, is not
   represented in these figures.

7.  Summary of Necessary Additions to OSPF and IS-IS

   The following sections summarize the additions to be provided to OSPF
   and IS-IS in support of ASON routing.

7.1.  OSPFv2

   Reachability      Extend Node Attribute sub-TLVs to support address
                     prefixes (see Section 5.3.3).

   Link Attributes   Representation of cross/inter-layer relationships
                     in link top-level link TLV (see Section 5.3.1).

                     Optionally, provide for per-signal-type bandwidth
                     accounting (see Section 5.3.1).

   Scoping           TE link advertisements to allow for retrieving
                     their respective local-remote TE Router_ID
                     relationship(s) (see Section 5.7).

                     Prefixes part of the reachability advertisement
                     (using Node Attribute top-level TLV) needs to be
                     associated to its respective local TE Router_ID
                     (see Section 5.7).




Papadimitriou, et al.        Informational                     [Page 13]

RFC 4652      Evaluation of Routing Protocols against ASON  October 2006


   Hierarchy         Provide a mechanism by which Type 10 Opaque LSA may
                     carry the information that a particular piece of
                     routing information has been learned from a
                     higher-level RC when propagated to a lower-level RC
                     (so as not to re-introduce this information into a
                     higher-level RC).

7.2.  IS-IS

   Reachability      Provide for reachability advertisement (in the form
                     of reachable TE prefixes).

   Link Attributes   Representation of cross/inter-layer relationships
                     in Extended IS Reachability TLV (see Section
                     5.3.1).

                     Optionally, provide for per-signal-type bandwidth
                     accounting (see Section 5.3.1).

   Scoping           Extended IS Reachability TLVs to allow for
                     retrieving their respective local-remote TE
                     Router_ID relationship(s) (see Section 5.7).

                     Prefixes part of the reachability advertisement
                     needs to be associated to its respective local TE
                     Router_ID (see Section 5.7).

   Hierarchy         Extend the up/down bit mechanisms to propagate the
                     summarized topology (see Section 5.3) and traffic
                     engineering information as listed in Table 1, as
                     well as reachability information (see Section
                     5.3.3).

8.  Security Considerations

   The introduction of a dynamic control plane to an ASON network
   exposes it to additional security risks that may have been controlled
   or limited by the use of management plane solutions.  The routing
   protocols play a part in the control plane and may be attacked so
   that they become unstable or provide incorrect information for use in
   path computation or by the signaling protocols.

   Nevertheless, there is no reason why the control plane components
   cannot be secured, and the security mechanisms developed for the
   routing protocol and used within the Internet are equally applicable
   within an ASON context.





Papadimitriou, et al.        Informational                     [Page 14]

RFC 4652      Evaluation of Routing Protocols against ASON  October 2006


   [RFC4258] describes the requirements for security of routing
   protocols for the Automatically Switched Optical Network.  Reference
   is made to [M.3016], which lays out the overall security objectives
   of confidentiality, integrity, and accountability.  These are well
   discussed for the Internet routing protocols in [THREATS].

   A detailed discussion of routing threats and mechanisms that are
   currently deployed in operational networks to counter these threats
   is found in [OPSECPRACTICES].  A detailed listing of the device
   capabilities that can be used to support these practices can be found
   in [RFC3871].

9.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel for having initiated
   the proposal of an ASON Routing Solution Design Team and the ITU-T
   SG15/Q14 for their careful review and input.

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [RFC1195]         Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP
                     and dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990.

   [RFC2966]         Li, T., Przygienda, T., and H. Smit, "Domain-wide
                     Prefix Distribution with Two-Level IS-IS", RFC
                     2966, October 2000.

   [RFC2328]         Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April
                     1998.

   [RFC2119]         Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
                     Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3477]         Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered
                     Links in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic
                     Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, January 2003.

   [RFC3630]         Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic
                     Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC
                     3630, September 2003.

   [RFC3784]         Smit, H. and T. Li, "Intermediate System to
                     Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions for Traffic
                     Engineering (TE)", RFC 3784, June 2004.





Papadimitriou, et al.        Informational                     [Page 15]

RFC 4652      Evaluation of Routing Protocols against ASON  October 2006


   [RFC3871]         Jones, G., Ed., "Operational Security Requirements
                     for Large Internet Service Provider (ISP) IP
                     Network Infrastructure", RFC 3871, September 2004.

   [RFC3946]         Mannie, E. and D. Papadimitriou, "Generalized
                     Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions
                     for Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and
                     Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control", RFC
                     3946, October 2004.

   [RFC4202]         Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing
                     Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol
                     Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005.

   [RFC4203]         Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF
                     Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol
                     Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005.

   [RFC4205]         Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed.,
                     "Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS)
                     Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol
                     Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4205, October 2005.

   [RFC4258]         Brungard, D., "Requirements for Generalized Multi-
                     Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Routing for the
                     Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)", RFC
                     4258, November 2005.

10.2.  Informative References

   [RFC4394]         Fedyk, D., Aboul-Magd, O., Brungard, D., Lang, J.,
                     and D. Papadimitriou, "A Transport Network View of
                     the Link Management Protocol (LMP)", RFC 4394,
                     February 2006.

   [OPSECPRACTICES]  Kaeo, M., "Operational Security Current Practices",
                     Work in Progress, July 2006.

   [OSPF-NODE]       Aggarwal, R. and K. Kompella, "Advertising a
                     Router's Local Addresses in OSPF TE Extensions",
                     Work in Progress, June 2006.

   [THREATS]         Barbir, A., Murphy, S., and Y. Yang, "Generic
                     Threats to Routing Protocols", RFC 4593, October
                     2006.






Papadimitriou, et al.        Informational                     [Page 16]

RFC 4652      Evaluation of Routing Protocols against ASON  October 2006


   For information on the availability of ITU Documents, please see
   http://www.itu.int

   [G.7715]          ITU-T Rec. G.7715/Y.1306, "Architecture and
                     Requirements for the Automatically Switched Optical
                     Network (ASON)", June 2002.

   [G.7715.1]        ITU-T Draft Rec. G.7715.1/Y.1706.1, "ASON Routing
                     Architecture and Requirements for Link State
                     Protocols", November 2003.

   [G.8080]          ITU-T Rec. G.8080/Y.1304, "Architecture for the
                     Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)",
                     June 2006.

   [M.3016]          ITU-T Rec. M.3016.0, "Security for the Management
                     Plane:  Overview", May 2005.


































Papadimitriou, et al.        Informational                     [Page 17]

RFC 4652      Evaluation of Routing Protocols against ASON  October 2006


Appendix A.  ASON Terminology

   This document makes use of the following terms:

   Administrative domain (see Recommendation G.805): For the purposes of
   [G.7715.1], an administrative domain represents the extent of
   resources that belong to a single player such as a network operator,
   a service provider, or an end-user.  Administrative domains of
   different players do not overlap amongst themselves.

   Control plane: Performs the call control and connection control
   functions.  Through signaling, the control plane sets up and releases
   connections and may restore a connection in case of a failure.

   (Control) Domain: Represents a collection of (control) entities that
   are grouped for a particular purpose.  The control plane is
   subdivided into domains matching administrative domains.  Within an
   administrative domain, further subdivisions of the control plane are
   recursively applied.  A routing control domain is an abstract entity
   that hides the details of the RC distribution.

   External NNI (E-NNI): Interfaces are located between protocol
   controllers between control domains.

   Internal NNI (I-NNI): Interfaces are located between protocol
   controllers within control domains.

   Link (see Recommendation G.805): A "topological component" that
   describes a fixed relationship between a "subnetwork" or "access
   group" and another "subnetwork" or "access group".  Links are not
   limited to being provided by a single server trail.

   Management plane: Performs management functions for the Transport
   Plane, the control plane, and the system as a whole.  It also
   provides coordination between all the planes.  The following
   management functional areas are performed in the management plane:
   performance, fault, configuration, accounting, and security
   management

   Management domain (see Recommendation G.805): A management domain
   defines a collection of managed objects that are grouped to meet
   organizational requirements according to geography, technology,
   policy, or other structure, and for a number of functional areas such
   as fault, configuration, accounting, performance, and security
   (FCAPS), for the purpose of providing control in a consistent manner.
   Management domains can be disjoint, contained, or overlapping.  As
   such, the resources within an administrative domain can be
   distributed into several possible overlapping management domains.



Papadimitriou, et al.        Informational                     [Page 18]

RFC 4652      Evaluation of Routing Protocols against ASON  October 2006


   The same resource can therefore belong to several management domains
   simultaneously, but a management domain shall not cross the border of
   an administrative domain.

   Subnetwork Point (SNP): The SNP is a control plane abstraction that
   represents an actual or potential transport plane resource.  SNPs (in
   different subnetwork partitions) may represent the same transport
   resource.  A one-to-one correspondence should not be assumed.

   Subnetwork Point Pool (SNPP): A set of SNPs that are grouped together
   for the purposes of routing.

   Termination Connection Point (TCP): A TCP represents the output of a
   Trail Termination function or the input to a Trail Termination Sink
   function.

   Transport plane: Provides bi-directional or unidirectional transfer
   of user information, from one location to another.  It can also
   provide transfer of some control and network management information.
   The Transport Plane is layered; it is equivalent to the Transport
   Network defined in G.805 Recommendation.

   User Network Interface (UNI): Interfaces are located between protocol
   controllers between a user and a control domain.  Note: There is no
   routing function associated with a UNI reference point.

Appendix B.  ASON Routing Terminology

   This document makes use of the following terms:

   Routing Area (RA): An RA represents a partition of the data plane,
   and its identifier is used within the control plane as the
   representation of this partition.  Per [G.8080], an RA is defined by
   a set of sub-networks, the links that interconnect them, and the
   interfaces representing the ends of the links exiting that RA.  An RA
   may contain smaller RAs inter-connected by links.  The limit of
   subdivision results in an RA that contains two sub-networks
   interconnected by a single link.

   Routing Database (RDB): Repository for the local topology, network
   topology, reachability, and other routing information that is updated
   as part of the routing information exchange and that may additionally
   contain information that is configured.  The RDB may contain routing
   information for more than one Routing Area (RA).







Papadimitriou, et al.        Informational                     [Page 19]

RFC 4652      Evaluation of Routing Protocols against ASON  October 2006


   Routing Components: ASON routing architecture functions.  These
   functions can be classified as being protocol independent (Link
   Resource Manager or LRM, Routing Controller or RC) and protocol
   specific (Protocol Controller or PC).

   Routing Controller (RC): Handles (abstract) information needed for
   routing and the routing information exchange with peering RCs by
   operating on the RDB.  The RC has access to a view of the RDB.  The
   RC is protocol independent.

   Note: Since the RDB may contain routing information pertaining to
   multiple RAs (and possibly to multiple layer networks), the RCs
   accessing the RDB may share the routing information.

   Link Resource Manager (LRM): Supplies all the relevant component and
   TE link information to the RC.  It informs the RC about any state
   changes of the link resources it controls.

   Protocol Controller (PC): Handles protocol-specific message exchanges
   according to the reference point over which the information is
   exchanged (e.g., E-NNI, I-NNI) and internal exchanges with the RC.
   The PC function is protocol dependent.





























Papadimitriou, et al.        Informational                     [Page 20]

RFC 4652      Evaluation of Routing Protocols against ASON  October 2006


Authors' Addresses

   Dimitri Papadimitriou, Ed.
   Alcatel
   Francis Wellensplein 1,
   B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
   Phone: +32 3 2408491
   EMail: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be

   Lyndon Ong
   Ciena Corporation
   PO Box 308
   Cupertino, CA 95015 , USA
   Phone: +1 408 705 2978
   EMail: lyong@ciena.com

   Jonathan Sadler
   Tellabs
   1415 W. Diehl Rd
   Naperville, IL 60563
   EMail: jonathan.sadler@tellabs.com

   Stephen Shew
   Nortel Networks
   3500 Carling Ave.
   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA K2H 8E9
   Phone: +1 613 7632462
   EMail: sdshew@nortel.com

   Dave Ward
   Cisco Systems
   170 W. Tasman Dr.
   San Jose, CA 95134 USA
   Phone: +1-408-526-4000
   EMail: dward@cisco.com
















Papadimitriou, et al.        Informational                     [Page 21]

RFC 4652      Evaluation of Routing Protocols against ASON  October 2006


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).







Papadimitriou, et al.        Informational                     [Page 22]

