MPLS Working Group Zafar Ali
Internet Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended status: Informational July 07 2008
Expires: January 06 2009
Signaled PID When Multiplexing Multiple Payloads over RSVP-TE LSPs
draft-ali-mpls-sig-pid-multiplexing-case-00.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that
any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is
aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she
becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of
BCP 79.
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
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 6, 2009.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
Abstract
There are many deployment scenarios where an RSVP-TE LSP carries
multiple payloads. In these cases, it gets ambiguous on what
should value should be carried as L3PID in the Label Request
Object [RFC3209] or G-PID in the Generalized Label Request Object
Expires January 2009 [Page 1]
draft-ali-mpls-sig-pid-multiplexing-case-00.txt
[RFC3471], [RFC3473]. The document propose use of some dedicated
PID values to cover some typical cases of multiple payload
carried by the LSP, including that indicates to the egress node
to ignore signaling to learn payload carried by the LSP.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...............................................2
2. Some use cases.............................................3
2.1. PID = 0x0800 (IPv4 Payload)...........................3
2.2. PID = 0x86DD (IPv6 Payload)...........................3
2.3. IPv4+IPv6 PID.........................................3
2.4. Unknown PID...........................................3
3. Security Considerations....................................4
4. IANA Considerations........................................4
5. References.................................................4
5.1. Normative References..................................4
5.2. Informative References................................4
Author's Addresses............................................4
Intellectual Property Statement...............................4
Disclaimer of Validity........................................5
1. Introduction
When an RSVP-TE LSP is used to carry multiple payload type (e.g.,
IPv6 and IPv4 payloads on the same LSP), it gets ambiguous on
what value should be carried as L3PID in the Label Request Object
[RFC3209] or G-PID in the Generalized Label Request Object
[RFC3471], [RFC3473]. It also gets unclear at the receiver that
source may be multiplexing multiple payloads on the same RSVP-TE
LSP. The document clarifies some of the use cases where RSVP-TE
LSP is used to carry multiple payloads and what PID should be
used during signaling. It also suggests use of an "unknown" PID
in signaling when PID is completely determined by scope outside
of signaling.
Expires January 2009 [Page 2]
draft-ali-mpls-sig-pid-multiplexing-case-00.txt
At this stage document is written without use of formal language,
but the idea is to first see if the WG feedback on the need for
this work.
2. Some use cases
This section outlines some used cases.
2.1. PID = 0x0800 (IPv4 Payload)
This case is optimized for carrying IPv4 payload such that IPv4
packets travel without need for any additional information
(label) to identify the payload, i.e., IPv4 payload is identified
by the signaling. If multiplexing of additional payloads is
desired, some in-band data plane mechanisms are needed to
identify the payload. E.g., if IPv4 and IPv6 payloads are
multiplexed on the same tunnel, an IPv6 Explicit Null Label or
some other application label is used to identify IPv6 payload.
2.2. PID = 0x86DD (IPv6 Payload)
This case is optimized for carrying IPv6 payload such that IPv6
packets travel without need for any additional information
(label) to identify the payload, i.e., IPv6 payload is identified
by the signaling. If multiplexing of additional payloads is
desired, some in-band data plane mechanisms are needed to
identify the payload. E.g., if IPv4 and IPv6 payloads are
multiplexed on the same tunnel, an IPv4 Explicit Null Label or
some other application label is used to identify IPv4 payload.
2.3. IPv4+IPv6 PID
This case is optimized for multiplexing IPv4 and IPv6 payloads
such that both IPv6 and IPv6 packets travel without need for any
additional information (label) to identify the payload. In this
case the Egress node looks at the IP version field to identify
the payload type (while demultiplexing the traffic). If
multiplexing of additional payloads or application is desired,
some in-band data plane mechanisms are needed to identify the
payload.
L3PID and G-PID code point for this are TBA.
2.4. Unknown PID
This case is the case where payload to be carried by the LSP is
not known to the Ingress node. Payload identification is obtained
via some means other than signaling and egress node ignores the
signaled PID.
Expires January 2009 [Page 3]
draft-ali-mpls-sig-pid-multiplexing-case-00.txt
Unknown PID with code point of 0x00 is already defined for G-PID
in the Generalized Label Request Object [RFC3471], [RFC3473].
L3PID code point for this is TBA.
3. Security Considerations
TBA
4. IANA Considerations
TBA
5. References
5.1. Normative References
[RFC3209] Awduche D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li T., Srinivasan, V.,
Swallow, G., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC
3209, December 2001.
[RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471,
January 2003.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
5.2. Informative References
Author's Addresses
Zafar Ali
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: zali@cisco.com
Intellectual Property Statement
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.
Expires January 2009 [Page 4]
draft-ali-mpls-sig-pid-multiplexing-case-00.txt
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.
Disclaimer of Validity
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, THE
IETF TRUST 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.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
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.
Expires January 2009 [Page 5]