Internet Draft

  Network Working Group                                    Albert Herrera
  Internet Draft                                               Russ White
  draft-ietf-ipoptr-framework-00.txt                        Cisco Systems
  Expiration Date: June, 2001
                                                            Pankaj K. Jha
                                                    Cypress Semiconductor

                                                               Raj Sharma
                                                           Sanjay Agrawal
                                                         Prasad Jogalekar
                                                              Arun Sastry
                                                        Luminous Networks

                                                              Khaled Amer
                                                                  AmerNet

                                                          December, 2000





              A Framework for IP over Packet Transport Rings
                   <draft-ietf-ipoptr-framework-00.txt>




  Status of this Memo

  This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all
  provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

  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/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

  The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
  http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.






   Herrera, et al           Expires June, 2001                  [Page 1]


  INTERNET-DRAFT       A Framework for IP over PTR       November, 2000




  1.   Abstract

  This document discusses technical issues and requirements for the IP
  over Packet Transport Rings working group. It is the intent of this
  document to produce a coherent description of all significant
  approaches, which were and are being considered by the working group.
  Selections of specific approaches, making choices regarding
  engineering tradeoffs, and detailed protocol specification, are
  outside of the scope of this framework document.

  2.   Acknowledgments

  The ideas and text in this document have been collected from a number
  of sources and comments received. We would like to thank Alvaro
  Retana, Don Slice, Liem Nyueng, Jason Fan, Vinay Bannai for their
  inputs and ideas.

  3.   Introduction and Requirements

  3.1   Overview of IPoPTR

  The primary goal of the IPoPTR Working Group is to standardize a base
  technology that integrates RPR (Resilient Packet Rings) MAC functions
  as defined by the IEEE 802.17 Working Group with network layer
  routing. The IPoPTR working group expects to optimize packet transport
  over rings on LAN, MAN and WAN topologies.


  Current network layer routing treats these rings as a broadcast
  capable LAN media similar to Ethernet. IPoPTR will enable additional
  Layer 3 intelligence to fully utilize MAC features, such as
  destination stripping and protection switching, to improve
  efficiencies and scalability at the network layer

  3.2   Requirements


     o L3 protocols MAY need the option to communicate administrative
       weights to RPR.
     o L3 protocols MAY need to have the option to choose the ring
       direction.
     o L3 protocols MAY need to have knowledge of the fault occurrences
       within the ring
     o Traffic Engineering specifications MUST support MPLS-TE over
       RPR.
     o L3 and MPLS QoS mappings MAY need to be communicated to RPR QoS


  Herrera, et al            Expires June, 2001                  [Page 2]


  INTERNET-DRAFT       A Framework for IP over PTR       November, 2000


       mechanisms
     o IPoPTR MUST address a wide range of routing protocols.
       Considerable optimizations can be achieved in some cases by
       small enhancements to existing protocols. Such enhancements MAY
       be considered in the case of IETF standard routing protocols,
       and if appropriate, coordinated with the relevant working
       group(s).
     o IPoPTR MUST support operations, administration, and maintenance
       facilities that are at least as extensive as those supported in
       current IP networks. Current network management and diagnostic
       tools SHOULD continue to work in order to provide some backward
       compatibility.
     o The IPoPTR should scale across hierarchical networks.


  3.3   Acronyms and Abbreviations


          LSP          Label Switched Path
          LSR          Label Switch Router
          NBMA         Non-Broadcast Multiple Access network
          RPR          Resilient Packet Rings (IEEE802.17)
          MPLS         Multi-Protocol Label Switching


  3.4   Motivation for IPoPTR

  The evolution of Metro access networks has driven the industry to
  develop a new IEEE WG called RPR. This defines a MAC layer that has to
  be integrated to the upper layer protocols. This allows additional
  mechanisms and support for Traffic Engineering, routing, QoS and fast
  protection switching.

  This section describes the expected benefits of IPoPTR.

  At the physical layer, RPR looks like a set of point-to-point spans
  while at the datalink layer it appears to be a broadcast media LAN
  (equivalent to Ethernet, for instance).

  While current link-state routing protocols provide various media
  access models, such broadcast, point-to-point, and point-to
  multipoint, none of the existing models can fully exploit the benefits
  RPR has to offer.

  IPoPTR will define a logical model that closely reflects the
  underlying physical model and in the process enable routing protocols
  to directly utilize features not available in other ring topologies.



  Herrera, et al            Expires June, 2001                  [Page 3]


  INTERNET-DRAFT       A Framework for IP over PTR       November, 2000


  3.4.1   Benefits Related to Cost Metrics Awareness

  There are benefits associated with synchronizing L2 and L3 routing
  cost metrics as per different policies. RPR, at the MAC layer,
  implements its own topology discovery mechanism within a single ring
  implementation. This involves tracking source/destination MAC
  addresses and utilizing the different matrices, including number of
  hops, to determine the most efficient ring direction (inner or outer)
  for delivery of unicast packets.

  In networks such as this, then, communicating layer 3 metrics to the
  MAC layer, and vise-versa, can optimize packet delivery--especially in
  topologies with dramatic differences in node distances and costs.


  3.4.2   Benefits Related to Adjacency Awareness

  Adjacency awareness is closely tied to the cost metrics interaction
  between L2 and L3.

  3.4.3   Benefits Related to TE/Explicit Routing/QoS Routing Support

  RPR has inherent abilities to re-route around faults. It can be
  exploited by TE protocols to route tunnels across these rings.

  To take full advantage of RPR, TE must manage bandwidth on both the
  inner and outer ring. This enables proper accounting at each node and
  allows for full Traffic Engineering capabilities within the ring.

  MPLS allows explicit routing of Label Switched Paths to ensure that
  any particular stream of data takes a preferred path. This preferred
  path could be the long-path around the ring towards a destination
  node. This same mechanism will enable QoS Routing in which the route
  chosen for a particular stream is chosen in response to the QoS
  required.


  4.   Technical Approaches

  Technical approaches for IPoPTR may have to address policy management,
  QoS, Traffic Engineering, L2/L3 fault interaction and L3 routing.

  Future contributions will address these mechanisms in detail with
  appropriate assumptions in conjunction with the evolving RPR
  specification.

  Given the work-in-progress nature of RPR, individual contributions may
  have to address different assumptions.


  Herrera, et al            Expires June, 2001                  [Page 4]


  INTERNET-DRAFT       A Framework for IP over PTR       November, 2000




  5.   Security

  Security in a network using IPoPTR should be relatively similar to
  security in a normal IP network. The route filtering and packet
  filtering features are unchanged.

  6.   Full Copyright Statement

  "Copyright (C) The Internet Society. All Rights Reserved. This
  document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others,
  and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist
  in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and
  distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind,
  provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
  included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
  document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
  the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
  Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing
  Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined
  in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to
  translate it into._

  7.   References


  1.   ISO 10589, "Intermediate System to Intermediate System Intra-
       Domain Routing Exchange Protocol for use in Conjunction with the
       Protocol for Providing the Connectionless-mode Network Service
       (ISO 8473)" [Also republished as RFC 1142]
  2.   RFC 1195, "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and dual
       environments", R. W. Callon, Dec. 1990
  3.   RFC 2178, "OSPF Version 2", J. Moy. July 1997
  4.   "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture", E. Rosen, A.
       Viswanathan, R. Callon, work in progress, draft-ietf-mpls-arch-
       06.txt, August 1999.
  5.   IEEE 802.17 RPR PAR and 5 Criteria,                          
                                                                   
                                                                    
                                           http://www.ieee802.org/17,
       November 2000.



  8.   Author's Addresses







  Herrera, et al            Expires June, 2001                  [Page 5]


  INTERNET-DRAFT       A Framework for IP over PTR       November, 2000


  Albert Herrera
  Cisco Systems, Inc.
  365 March Road,
  Kanata, ON K2K 2C9
  Phone: 613-271-3635
  Email: albherre@cisco.com

  Russ White
  Cisco Systems, Inc.
  7025 Kit Creek Road
  Research Triangle Park, NC
  Phone: 919 392-3139
  Email: ruwhite@cisco.com
                          
                         
                          

  Pankaj K Jha
  Cypress Semiconductor
  3901 N First Street
  San Jose, CA 95134
  Phone: 408 432 7091
  pkj@cypress.com
                 
                
                 

  Raj Sharma (raj)
  Sanjay Agrawal (sanjay)
  Prasad Jogalekar (prasad)
  Arun Sastry
  (arun@luminousnetworks.com)
  Luminous Networks
  10460 Bubb Road
  Cupertino, CA 95014
  Tel: 408-342-6400

  Khaled Amer
  AmerNet
  Email: khaledamer@usa.net
















  Herrera, et al            Expires June, 2001                  [Page 6]