This application is the national phase under 35 U.S.C. §371 of PCT International Application No. PCT/EP2011/068654 which has an International filing date of Oct. 25, 2011, which claims priority to European patent application number 10290634.4 filed Dec. 1, 2010; the entire contents of each of which are hereby encorporated by reference.
This invention relates generally to the technical field of synchronization transfer using the IEEE Standard 1588™-2008 protocol, also called as Precision Time Protocol (PTP).
As telecommunication data transmission is increasingly reliant on packet-based networks (e.g. Ethernet, MPLS/IP), robust methods for time and frequency synchronization within these networks are more and more required. By synchronization, a way of distributing common time and frequency references to network clocks, embedded within network nodes, in order to align their time and frequency scales, is meant.
Precision Time Protocol (PTP), standardized by the IEEE (Institut of Electrical and Electronics Engineers), is one of the most up-to-date standard that addresses synchronization problem within packet-based networks. In fact, PTP was designed as an improvement on current time synchronization technologies such as Network Time Protocol (NTP).
PTP is a packet-based protocol relying on the measurement of the communication path delay between a time source, designated as a master clock, and a receiver, designated as a slave clock.
PTP has first introduced Boundary Clock (BC) concept, but very soon with the development of packet-based networks, a plurality of BC limitations have been pointed out, especially with regards to the possible number of cascaded BCs in a synchronization chain. Indeed, it is shown that the synchronization transfer over a long chain of BCs can result in a large phase error accumulation. Such error is mainly due to
Thus, as an alternative to BC, a recent concept, called Transparent Clock (TC) was specified in a second release (PTPV2) mainly with the goal of bypassing cascade scalability issue.
In principle, a TC simply provides corrections for the PTP packet residence time across the network node (i.e. a bridge, a router, a switch, a repeater, or the like). The residence time corresponds here to the time needed by a PTP event message to propagate from an ingress port to an egress port of the network node. To that end, TC proceeds with:
Accordingly, one can retain that TC forwards PTP event message but after modifying it, though keeping in mind what CF modification may induce.
Hence, as soon as tunneling and encapsulation are evoked, several problems with regard to PTP event messages modification arise. In fact, the ability to modify a PTP packet (or more generally, a PTP event message) encapsulated within a tunnel raises several concerns and issues. Among those problems, one can mention:
It is one object of the present invention to overcome at least one of the aforementioned problems and to offer advantages over the prior art.
Another object of the present invention is to overcome at least one of the aforementioned problems without adding relatively complex circuitries to conventional TCs.
Another object of the present invention is to avoid layer violation while timing messages are handled by TCs.
Another object of the present invention is to allow TC deployment within encapsulation/tunneling embodiments, or more generally wherever it is impossible to modify timing messages.
Another object of the present invention is to permit TC deployment on an intermediate node within a tunnel, whatever its ability to access to PTP event message content.
Another object of the present invention is to permit TC deployment across encrypted tunnels within PTP networks.
Another object of the present invention is to provide a method for TC deployment across IPSec tunnels.
The objects, advantages and other features of the present invention will become more apparent from the following disclosure and claims. The following non-restrictive description of preferred embodiments is given for the purpose of exemplification only with reference to the accompanying drawings in which like reference characters refer to similar elements and in which
It is to be noted that numeral references do not connote, here, any particular order or hierarchy, and are used only for referencing purpose.
The present invention is directed to addressing the effects of one or more of the problems set forth above. The following presents a simplified summary of the invention in order to provide a basic understanding of some aspects of the invention. This summary is not an exhaustive overview of the invention. It is not intended to identify key of critical elements of the invention or to delineate the scope of the invention. Its sole purpose is to present some concepts in a simplified form as a prelude to the more detailed description that is discussed later.
The present invention relates to a method for handling at least one encapsulated synchronization message by a tunnel node including a transparent clock, said method comprising the following steps:
In accordance with a broad aspect, the synchronization message is tagged with a class of service value.
In accordance with another broad aspect, the tunnel follow-up message is comprised within a maintenance message.
In accordance with another broad aspect, the synchronization message is encrypted.
In accordance with another broad aspect, the synchronization message is transported within nested tunnels.
The present invention further relates to a tunnel node including a transparent clock and comprising means for generating a signature from an incoming encapsulated synchronization message.
In accordance with a broad aspect, a hash function, as a mean for generating a signature from the incoming encapsulated synchronization message, is provided.
Advantageously, the generated signature binds unambiguously and uniquely the tunnel follow-up message to its associated synchronization message (e.g. PTP event message).
Advantageously, the tunnel-follow up message may be modified by tunnel intermediate nodes without breaking the layer separation principle.
While the invention is susceptible to various modification and alternative forms, specific embodiments thereof have been shown by way of examples in the drawings. It should be understood, however, that the description herein of specific embodiments is not intended to limit the invention to the particular forms disclosed.
It may of course be appreciated that in the development of any such actual embodiments, implementation-specific decisions should be made to achieve the developer's specific goal, such as compliance with system-related and business-related constraints. It will be appreciated that such a development effort might be time consuming but may nevertheless be a routine understanding for those or ordinary skill in the art having the benefit of this disclosure.
With reference to
The tunnel 5 end nodes are the tunnel head-end node 1 and the tunnel tail-end node 4. Both nodes 1 and 4 are of the LER (Label Edge Router) type.
The tunnel intermediate nodes 2-3 are of the LSR (Label Switching Router) type. The tunnel 5 may comprise none intermediate node, an intermediate node, or a plurality of intermediate nodes.
All nodes 1-4 of the tunnel 5 comprise conventional TCs functionalities.
According to one embodiment and within the context of TCs deployment, the handling of a PTP event message 6 comprises:
In one embodiment, the PTP event message 6 is tagged with a dedicated CoS (Class of Services) value. Thus, tunnel intermediate nodes 2-3 recognize PTP event messages 6 on the basis of dedicated CoS value tagged thereon. The CoS value may be transported within the MPLS label 3-bit EXP field (Cf. IETF RFC 3032).
Alternatively, the PTP event message 6 may be tagged with a message type flag, or with a message identifier, or a specific dedicated MPLS label.
In one embodiment, the generated message is a Tunnel Follow-up Message (TFM) 8, valid only within the tunnel 5 boundaries. TFM 8 is somewhat similar to PTPV2 standard follow-up message, except that TFM 8 does not follow the same data path 11 as its associated PTP event message 6 (also called as synchronization message). In other words, TFM 8 is not conveyed in the same tunnel 5 as its correspondent PTP event message 6. TFM 8 is routed on path 9 which includes the tunnel 5 nodes.
According to another aspect of TFM 8, it is transported or encapsulated so that the intermediate nodes 2-3 of the tunnel 5 can modify its CF (Correction Field) without breaking the layer separation principle. To that end, TFM 8 is transported, for example, within a “modified” OAM (Operations Administration and Maintenance) LSP traceroute message so that the CF of the TFM 8 may be modified at each intermediate node 2-3, namely at each hop by each traversed LSR (alternatively, each traversed LSR can communicate the associated event message residence time in the same manner as it communicates its own IP system address in a standard traceroute procedure). It is worth to mention, here, that there is no layer violation as traceroute procedures use Time-to-Live (TTL) expiry to address intermediate nodes (IP traceroute, OAM LSP traceroute for example).
The TFM 8 comprises a plurality of additional TLVs (Type-Length-Value structures), such as
The event message signature 7 may be obtained from the event message 6 according to a plurality of methods, such as by using
In a preferred embodiment, the event message signature 7 is hash function of the entire encapsulated PTP event message 6.
With reference to
In one embodiment illustrated in
Tunnel intermediate nodes 22-23 recognize encapsulated PTP event messages 26 on the basis of distinctive mark tagged thereon. In one embodiment, PTP event messages 26 are tagged with dedicated CoS value transported within the DSCP (Differentiated Services CodePoint) field within the IPSec header.
With reference to
As in the above embodiments, the generated TFM 28 within the IPSec tunnel 25 may include more than one TLV such as:
A tunnel intermediate node 22-23 or the tunnel tail-end node 24 may receive the TFM 28 before the associated PTP event message 26. In this case, this tunnel node 22-24 buffers the TFM 28 while waiting for the reception its associated PTP event message 26. A validity timer is launched and the expiry of this timer triggers the erasure of the TFM 28 from the buffer.
In another embodiment illustrated in
In fact, TL-TLV is used to indicate the level associated to a TFM. The tunnel level can be manually configured by the operator, but can also be automatically managed (e.g. automatically increased at the tunnel ingress end node and decreased at the tunnel egress end node).
As an example, the level-1-tunnel can be a GRE tunnel and the level-2-tunnel can be an IPSec tunnel (central segment (node 32-node 33) is supposed to be un-secured). In this case, level-1 signature of the encapsulated PTP event message (i.e. in node 1) may be the message sequence number and level-2 signature (in node 32) may be a hash function of the encrypted PTP event message 36.
With reference to
As illustrated in
The skilled person should understand that those teachings may be extended to more than two nested tunnels wherein a PTP even message may undergo successive encapsulations/de-encapsulations.
TCs embedded within the tunnel nodes described above, are provided with required means for TFM generation and handling. Such means may include
It is to be noted that herein described method and system are independent of TC type, whatever an end-to-end or a peer-to-peer one.
At this time, it is noteworthy to mention that the herein described embodiments are not limited to PTPv2. The skilled person should understand those teachings may concern any other synchronization protocol, or any further version of PTP making use TCs. Hence, the expression “PTP event message”, cited above, may be substituted by “synchronization event message”, “timing message”, or more generally “synchronization message”.
Number | Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
10290634 | Dec 2010 | EP | regional |
Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind | 371c Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
PCT/EP2011/068654 | 10/25/2011 | WO | 00 | 10/11/2013 |
Publishing Document | Publishing Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
WO2012/072343 | 6/7/2012 | WO | A |
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
7164652 | Puppa | Jan 2007 | B2 |
8804736 | Drake | Aug 2014 | B1 |
8914662 | Guo | Dec 2014 | B2 |
9042411 | Hutchison | May 2015 | B1 |
20030112748 | Puppa | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20050213513 | Ngo | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20060062218 | Sasagawa | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060203717 | Puppa | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20090003223 | McCallum | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090113070 | Mehta | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20110200051 | Rivaud | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20110222412 | Kompella | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110305307 | Wang | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20120051374 | Obradovic | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120072761 | Guo | Mar 2012 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
101425890 | May 2009 | CN |
101827098 | Sep 2010 | CN |
Entry |
---|
Treytl, A. et al. “Securing IEEE 1588 by IPsec Tunnels—An Analysis”. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, p. 83-90; Sep. 2010; xp031780849. |
Jobert, S. “Issues with the Transparent Clock concept of PTPv2 in a telecom environment”. ltu-T Drafts, International Telecommunication Union; Geneva; Study Group 15, pp. 1-5; Oct. 2010; xp017448523. |
Davari, S. et al.“Transporting PTP messages (1588) overMPLS Networks;draft-davari-tictoc-1588overmpls-OO.txt”. Internet Engineering Task Force , IETF, pp. 1-13; Geneva; Sep. 2010; xp015071277. |
Xu, Y. et al. “IPsec security for packet based synchronization; draft-xu-tictoc-ipsec-security-for-synchronization-OO.txt”. Internet Engineering Task Force, IETF, pp. 1-13; Geneva; Oct. 2010; xp015071736. |
International Search Report PCT/ISA/210 for PCT/EP2011/068654 dated Nov. 30, 2011. |
Written Opinion PCT/ISA/237 for PCT/EP2011/068654 dated Nov. 30, 2011. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20140036936 A1 | Feb 2014 | US |