tvr J. Wang
Internet-Draft P. Liu
Intended status: Informational China Mobile
Expires: 26 January 2024 25 July 2023
Consideration for TVR (Time-Variant Routing) Requirements
draft-wang-tvr-requirements-consideration-00
Abstract
This document makes some supplements for TVR's requirements.
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 of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 26 January 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 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 (https://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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Wang & Liu Expires 26 January 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft tvr-requirements July 2023
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3.1. Support Identification of Time-Variant Node and
Non-Time-Variant Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Support Different Advertisement Strategies for Time-Variant
Node and Non-Time-Variant Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
7. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1. Introduction
Existing routing protocols are expected to maintain end-to-end
connected paths across a network. There are cases where the end-to-
end path can not be maintained, such as the loss of an adjacent peer.
In these cases, corrections could be applied prior to the resumption
of data transmission. Corrections may include attempting to re-
establish lost adjacencies and recalculating or rediscovering a
functional topology. [I-D.ietf-tvr-use-cases].
Recently, the document [I-D.kcs-tvr-requirements] gave some TVR's
requirements about general temporality , and this document makes some
supplements for TVR's requirements.
2. Conventions
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 BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. Requirements
Considering requirements for TVR (Time-Variant Routing) in the
following aspects
Wang & Liu Expires 26 January 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft tvr-requirements July 2023
3.1. Support Identification of Time-Variant Node and Non-Time-Variant
Node
In the usecase of Time-Variant Routing[I-D.ietf-tvr-use-cases], there
may be two types of network composition. One is composed entirely of
Time-Variant Nodes. For example, the location of network nodes in
LEO will change from time. The other is composed of Time-Variant
Nodes and Non-Time-Variant Nodes. For example, some network nodes
have different power supplies. Some network nodes can be
continuously powered, while others may change over time. Therefore,
o MUST provide a discovery and resolving methodology for the
identification of Time-Variant Node and Non-Time-Variant Node.
3.2. Support Different Advertisement Strategies for Time-Variant Node
and Non-Time-Variant Node
As mentioned in 3.1, in the application scenario of Time-Variant
Routing, there may be two types of nodes in the network, namely Time-
Variant Node and Non-Time-Variant Node. In TVR, the state
information of nodes needs to be advertised in order to make routing
decisions. Redundancy of information advertisement in the network is
a typical problem. In the use case of Time-Variant Routing, the
time-variant state information of network nodes will affect the
routing decision. However, the change frequency of state information
of time-variant nodes and non-time-variant nodes is inconsistent.
Therefore,
o MUST support different advertisement strategies for time-variant
nodes and non-time-variant nodes, so as to reduce notification
redundancy in the network.
4. Conclusion
This document makes some supplements for TVR's requirements about
support identification and different advertisement strategies for
Time-Variant Node and Non-Time-Variant Node.
5. Security Considerations
TBD.
6. IANA Considerations
TBD.
7. Informative References
Wang & Liu Expires 26 January 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft tvr-requirements July 2023
[I-D.ietf-tvr-use-cases]
Birrane, E. J., Kuhn, N., and Y. Qu, "TVR (Time-Variant
Routing) Use Cases", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-tvr-use-cases-01, 3 July 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tvr-use-
cases-01>.
[I-D.kcs-tvr-requirements]
King, D., Contreras, L. M., and B. Sipos, "TVR (Time-
Variant Routing) Requirements", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-kcs-tvr-requirements-00, 8 July
2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-kcs-
tvr-requirements-00>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
Authors' Addresses
Jing Wang
China Mobile
No.32 XuanWuMen West Street
Beijing
100053
China
Email: wangjingjc@chinamobile.com
Peng Liu
China Mobile
No.32 XuanWuMen West Street
Beijing
100053
China
Email: liupengyjy@chinamobile.com
Wang & Liu Expires 26 January 2024 [Page 4]