wdiff rfc8234.alt-original rfc8234.txt

MPLS Working Group
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Ryoo
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 8234 T. Cheung
Updates: 7271 (if approved) ETRI
Intended status:
Category: Standards Track H. van Helvoort
Expires: December 5, 2017
ISSN: 2070-1721 Hai Gaoming BV
I. Busi
G. Wen
Huawei Technologies
June 3,
August 2017

Updates to MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection in
Automatic Protection Switching (APS) Mode
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-aps-updates-04.txt

Abstract

This document contains updates to MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP)
linear protection in Automatic Protection Switching (APS) mode
defined in RFC 7271. The updates provide rules related to the
initialization of the Protection State Coordination (PSC) Control
Logic, in
Logic (in which the state machine resides, resides) when operating in APS
mode, mode
and clarify some the operation related to state transition table lookup.

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents an Internet Standards Track document.

This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list It represents the consensus of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for a maximum publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

Information about the current status of six months this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on December 5, 2017.
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8234.

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Acronyms . . Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Initialization Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. State Transition Modification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.3. Operation related Related to State Transition Table Lookup . . . 6
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Acknowledgements References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . 8
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . 8
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9

1. Introduction

MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) linear protection in Automatic
Protection Switching (APS) mode is defined in RFC 7271 [RFC7271]. It
defines a set of alternate and additional mechanisms to perform some
of the functions of linear protection described in RFC 6378
[RFC6378]. The actions performed at initialization of the Protection
State Coordination (PSC) Control Logic are not described in either
[RFC7271] or [RFC6378]. Although it is a common perception that the
state machine starts at the Normal state, this is not explicitly
specified in any of the documents and various questions have been
raised by implementers and in discussions on the MPLS working group
mailing list concerning the detailed actions that the PSC Control
Logic should take.

The state machine described in [RFC7271] operates under the
assumption that both end nodes of a linear protection domain start in
the Normal state. In the case that one node reboots while the other
node is still in operation, various scenarios may arise resulting in
problematic situations. This document resolves all the problematic
cases and minimizes traffic disruptions related to initialization initialization,
including both cold and warm reboots that require re-initialization
of the PSC Control Logic.

This document contains updates to the MPLS-TP linear protection in
APS mode defined in [RFC7271]. The updates provide rules related to
initialization of the PSC Control Logic, in Logic (in which the state machine
resides,
resides) when operating in APS mode. The updates also include
modifications to the state transition table defined in Section 11.2
of [RFC7271]. The changes in the state transition table have been
examined to make sure that they do not introduce any no new problems. problems are introduced.

This document does not introduce backward compatibility issues with
implementations of [RFC7271]. In case a node implementing this
document restarts, the new state changes will not cause problems at
the remote node implementing [RFC7271] [RFC7271], and the two ends will
converge to the same local and remote states. In case a node
implementing [RFC7271] restarts, the two ends behave as they do
today.

This document also provides some clarifications on the operation
related to state transition table lookup.

The reader of this document is assumed to be familiar with [RFC7271].

2. Conventions Used in This Document

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.

3. Acronyms Abbreviations
This document uses the following acronyms: abbreviations:

APS Automatic Protection Switching
DNR Do-not-Revert
E::R Exercise state due to remote EXER message
EXER Exercise
MS-P Manual Switch to Protection path
MS-W Manual Switch to Working path
MPLS-TP MPLS Transport Profile
NR No Request
PF:DW:R Protecting Failure state due to remote SD-W message
PF:W:L Protecting Failure state due to local SF-W
PF:W:R Protecting Failure state due to remote SF-W message
PSC Protection State Coordination
RR Reverse Request
SA:MP:R Switching Administrative state due to remote MS-P message
SA:MW:R Switching Administrative state due to remote MS-W message
SD Signal Degrade
SD-W Signal Degrade on Working path
SF Signal Fail
SF-P Signal Fail on Protection path
SF-W Signal Fail on Working path
UA:P:L Unavailable state due to local SF-P
WTR Wait-to-Restore

4. Updates

This section specifies the actions that will be performed at the
initialization of the PSC Control Logic and the modifications of the
state transition table defined in Section 11.2 of [RFC7271]. Some
clarifications on the operation related to state transition table
lookup are also provided.

4.1. Initialization Behavior

This section defines initialization behavior that is not described in
[RFC7271].

When the PSC Control Logic is initialized, the following actions MUST
be performed:

o Stop the WTR timer if it is running.

o Clear any operator command in the Local Request Logic.

o If an SF-W or SF-P exists as the highest local request, the node
being initialized starts at the PF:W:L or UA:P:L state,
respectively.

o If the node being initialized has no local request:

* If the node being initialized does not remember the active path
or if the node being initialized remembers the working path as
the active path, the node starts at the Normal state.

* Else (the node being initialized remembers the protection path
as the active path), the node starts at the WTR state sending
NR(0,1) or at the DNR state sending DNR(0,1) depending on the
configuration that allows or prevents automatic reversion to
the Normal state.

o In case any local SD exists, the local SD MUST be considered as an
input to the Local Request Logic only after the local node has
received the first protocol message from the remote node and
completed the processing (i.e., updated the PSC Control Logic and
decided which action, if any, is to be sent to the PSC Message
Generator).

o If the local node receives an EXER message as the first protocol
message after initialization and the remote EXER becomes the top-
priority global request, the local node MUST set the position of
the bridge and selector according to the Path value in the EXER
message and transit to the E::R state.

Remembering

In the active path in case of no local request request, remembering the active path
minimizes traffic switchovers in cases where when the remote node is still in
operation. This approach does not cause a problem even if the
remembered active path is no longer valid due to any local input that
occurred at the remote node while the initializing node was out of
operation.

It is worth noting

Note that in some restart scenarios (e.g., cold
rebooting) rebooting), no valid
SF/SD indications may be present at the input of the Local Request logic.
Logic. In this case, the PSC Control Logic would
restart restarts as if no local
requests are present. If a valid SF/SD indication is detected later, this would be notified to
the PSC Control Logic is notified and trigger state change. change is triggered.

4.2. State Transition Modification

In addition to the initialization behavior described in Section 4.1,
four cells of the remote state transition table need to be changed to
make two end nodes converge after initialization. State transition
by remote message as defined in Section 11.2 of [RFC7271] is modified
as follows (only modified cells are shown):

| MS-W | MS-P | WTR | EXER | RR | DNR | NR
--------+---------+---------+-----+------+----+------+----
N | | | (13)| | | DNR |
PF:W:R | | | | | | DNR |
PF:DW:R | | | | | | DNR |

The changes in two rows of remote protecting failure states lead to
the replacement of note (10) with DNR, therefore DNR; therefore, note (10) is no
longer needed. The resultant three rows read:

| MS-W | MS-P | WTR | EXER | RR | DNR | NR
--------+---------+---------+-----+------+----+------+----
N | SA:MW:R | SA:MP:R | (13)| E::R | i | DNR | i
PF:W:R | SA:MW:R | SA:MP:R | (9) | E::R | i | DNR | (11)
PF:DW:R | SA:MW:R | SA:MP:R | (9) | E::R | i | DNR | (11)

In the tables above, the letters 'i' and 'N' stand for "ignore" and
"Normal state", respectively. Other acronyms abbreviations can be found in
Section 3.

4.3. Operation related Related to State Transition Table Lookup

In addition to the rules related to the state transition table lookup
listed in Section 11 of [RFC7271], the following rule is also applied
to the operation related to the state transition table lookup:

o When the local SF-P is cleared and the priorities of the local and
remote requests are re-evaluated, the last received remote message
may not no longer be valid any more due to the previous failure of the
protection path. Therefore, the last received message MUST be
treated as if it were NR and only the local request shall be
evaluated.

The last paragraph in Section 11 of [RFC7271] is modified as follows:

---------
Old text:
---------
In the state transition tables below, the letter 'i' stands for
"ignore" and is an indication to remain in the current state and
continue transmitting the current PSC message.

---------
New text:
---------
In the state transition tables below, the letter 'i' is the
"ignore" flag, and flag; if it is set set, it means that the top-priority
global request is ignored.

If re-evaluation is triggered, it is checked if the ignore flag is
set. checked. If it is,
is set, the state machine will transit to the supposed state, which
can be Normal or DNR as indicated in the footnotes to the state
transition tables. table in Section 11.1 of [RFC7271]. If the ignore flag
is not set, the state machine will transit to the state indicated
in the cell of the state transition table.

If re-evaluation is not triggered, it is checked if the ignore flag is set. checked. If
it is, is set, the state machine will remain in the current state, and
the current PSC message continues to be transmitted. If the ignore
flag is not set, the state machine will transit to the state
indicated in the cell of the state transition table.

5. Security Considerations

No specific security issue is raised in addition to those ones
already documented in [RFC7271]. It may be noted Note that tightening the
description of the initializing behavior may help to protect networks
from re-start restart attacks.

6. IANA Considerations

This document makes no request of IANA.

Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
RFC. does not require any IANA actions.

7. Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Joaquim Serra for bringing up the
issue related to initialization of the PSC Control Logic at the very
beginning. The authors would also like to thank Adrian Farrel and
Loa Andersson for their valuable comments and suggestions on this
document.

8. References

8.1.

7.1. Normative References

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

[RFC7271] Ryoo, J., Ed., Gray, E., Ed., van Helvoort, H.,
D'Alessandro, A., Cheung, T., and E. Osborne, "MPLS
Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection to Match the
Operational Expectations of Synchronous Digital Hierarchy,
Optical Transport Network, and Ethernet Transport Network
Operators", RFC 7271, DOI 10.17487/RFC7271, June 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7271>.

8.2.

[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

7.2. Informative References

[RFC6378] Weingarten, Y., Ed., Bryant, S., Osborne, E., Sprecher,
N., and A. Fulignoli, Ed., "MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-
TP) Linear Protection", RFC 6378, DOI 10.17487/RFC6378,
October 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6378>.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Joaquim Serra for raising the issue
related to initialization of the PSC Control Logic at the very
beginning. The authors would also like to thank Adrian Farrel and
Loa Andersson for their valuable comments and suggestions on this
document.

Authors' Addresses

Jeong-dong Ryoo
ETRI

EMail: ryoo@etri.re.kr

Taesik Cheung
ETRI

EMail: cts@etri.re.kr

Huub van Helvoort
Hai Gaoming BV

EMail: huubatwork@gmail.com

Italo Busi
Huawei Technologies

EMail: Italo.Busi@huawei.com

Guangjuan Wen
Huawei Technologies

EMail: wenguangjuan@huawei.com