Internet Draft Bala Rajagopalan draft-bala-uni-signaling-extensions-00.txt Tellium, Inc. Expiration : December, 10, 2002 LMP, LDP and RSVP Extensions for Optical UNI Signaling 1. 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. 2. Abstract The Optical Interworking Forum (OIF) has defined extensions to the Link Management Protocol (LMP), the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) and the Resource reServation Protocol (RSVP) for optical User Network Interface (UNI) signaling. These extensions consist of a set of new messages and data objects. This draft describes these extensions. 3. Introduction The OIF UNI signaling specification is described in [UNI]. This specification utilizes IETF protocol standards as well as IETF work in progress. Specifically, the following IETF specifications are used: o Link management protocol (LMP) [LMP] o Label distribution protocol (LDP) [LDP] o Resource reservation protocol (RSVP) [RSVP] o GMPLS signaling and GMPLS extensions for SONET/SDH [GMPLS SONET] o GMPLS RSVP-TE and CR-LDP extensions [GMPLS RSVP-TE][GMPLS CR- LDP] Page 1 of 9 draft-oif-uni-signaling-extensions-00.txt The aim of the OIF UNI specification is the maximal re-use of IETF protocol definitions. A few extensions to IETF protocols, however, have been defined to serve UNI-specific needs. These extensions are described in this draft. 4. LMP Extensions for UNI Signaling UNI service discovery utilizes extensions to LMP. These extensions consist of three new LMP messages and one new LMP data object class. The new LMP messages defined are: ServiceConfig, ServiceConfigAck, and ServiceConfigNack. These are described below: 4.1 ServiceConfig (Message Type = 50, To Be Assigned) The format of the ServiceConfig message is as follows: <ServiceConfig Message> ::= <Common Header> <LOCAL_NODE_ID> <MESSAGE_ID> <Service Config> Where <Common Header> is the LMP common header [LMP] <LOCAL_NODE_ID> is the LMP Object (Class = 3, C-Type = 1)[LMP] <MESSAGE_ID> is the LMP Object (Class = 9, C-Type = 1)[LMP] <ServiceConfig> is the new ServiceConfig Object Class (Class = 51, TBA) as defined below. The manner in which ServiceConfig messages are sent and processed is described in [UNI]. 4.2 ServiceConfigAck (Message Type = 51, TBA) The ServiceConfigAck message has the following format: <ServiceConfigAck Message> ::= <Common Header> <LOCAL_NODE_ID> <MESSAGE_ID_ACK> where: <Common Header> is the LMP common header [LMP] <LOCAL_NODE_ID> is the LMP Object (Class = 3, C-Type = 1)[LMP] <MESSAGE_ID_ACK> is the LMP Object (Class = 10, C-Type = 1)[LMP] 4.3 ServiceConfigNack (Message Type = 52, TBA) The ServiceConfigNack message has the following format: <ServiceConfigNack Message> ::= <Common Header> <LOCAL_NODE_ID> <MESSAGE_ID_ACK> <ServiceConfig>, where <Common Header> is the LMP common header [LMP] Expires on 4/10/02 Page 2 of 9 draft-oif-uni-signaling-extensions-00.txt <LOCAL_NODE_ID> is the LMP Object (Class = 3, C-Type = 1)[LMP] <MESSAGE_ID_ACK> is the LMP Object (Class = 10, C-Type = 1)[LMP] <ServiceConfig> is the new ServiceConfig Object Class (Class = 51, TBA) as defined below. 4.4 ServiceConfig Object The format of the ServiceConfig object is as follows: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |N| C-Type |Class=51 (TBA) | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | // (ServiceConfig Object Content) // | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The following ServiceConfig Object Contents are currently defined [UNI]: Signaling Protocols: C-Type = 1 Client Port-Level Service Attributes: C-Type = 2 Network Transparency and TCM Monitoring: C-Type = 3 Network Diversity: C-Type = 4 The format of these objects is described in [UNI]. 5. LDP Extensions for UNI Signaling The LDP extensions for UNI signaling consist of two new messages, new TLVs that capture UNI-specific parameters and new UNI-specific status codes. The new messages are Status Enquiry and Status Response. The new TLVs are Source ID (3 TLVs), Destination ID (3 TLVs), Egress Label, Local Connection ID, Diversity, Contract ID, and UNI Service Level [UNI]. These are described below. The new status codes are assigned from the private use space of LDP codes, as described in [UNI]. 5.1 Status Enquiry Message The encoding for the Status Enquiry Message is: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |U|F|Status Enquiry (0x0420,TBA)| Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ // Message Contents // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Expires on 4/10/02 Page 3 of 9 draft-oif-uni-signaling-extensions-00.txt The contents and usage of this message are described in [UNI]. 5.2 Status Response Message The encoding for the Status Response Message is: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |U|F|Status Enquiry (0x0421,TBA)| Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ // Message Contents // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The contents and usage of this message are described in [UNI]. 5.3 Source ID TLVs Three TLVs are defined for Source ID. These are encoded as: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |U|F|Source ID Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Contents ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The three possible Source ID Types are: Ipv4: Type = 0x0960 (TBA) Ipv6: Type = 0x0961 (TBA) NSAP: Type = 0x0962 (TBA) The content and usage of these TLVs are described in [UNI]. 5.4 Destination ID TLVs Three TLVs are defined for Destination ID. These are encoded as: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |U|F|Dest ID Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Contents ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The three possible Dest ID Types are: Expires on 4/10/02 Page 4 of 9 draft-oif-uni-signaling-extensions-00.txt Ipv4: Type = 0x0963 (TBA) Ipv6: Type = 0x0964 (TBA) NSAP: Type = 0x0965 (TBA) The content and usage of these TLVs are described in [UNI]. 5.5 Egress Label TLV The Egress Label TLV is encoded as: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |U|F|Egress Label (0x966, TBA) | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Contents ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The content and usage of this TLV are described in [UNI]. 5.6 Local Connection ID TLV The Local Connection ID TLV is encoded as: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |U|F|Local Conn. ID (0x967, TBA)| Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Contents ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The content and usage of this TLV are described in [UNI]. 5.7 Diversity TLV The Diversity TLV is encoded as: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |U|F|Diversity (0x968, TBA) | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Contents ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Expires on 4/10/02 Page 5 of 9 draft-oif-uni-signaling-extensions-00.txt The content and usage of this TLV are described in [UNI]. 5.8 Contract ID TLV The Contract ID TLV is encoded as: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |U|F|Contract ID (0x969, TBA) | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Contents ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The content and usage of this TLV are described in [UNI]. 5.9 UNI Service Level TLV The UNI Service Level TLV is encoded as: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |U|F|Contract ID (0x970, TBA) | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Contents ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The content and usage of this TLV are described in [UNI]. 6. RSVP Extensions for UNI Signaling A single new object class, called "Generalized_UNI" is defined. In addition, extension to the RSVP session object and new UNI-specific error codes are defined. These are described below. 6.1 Generalized_UNI Object The GENERALIZED_UNI object has the following format: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Length (>8) | Class-Num(TBA)| C-Type (1) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ // (Subobjects) // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Subobjects: Expires on 4/10/02 Page 6 of 9 draft-oif-uni-signaling-extensions-00.txt The contents of a GENERALIZED_UNI object are a series of variable- length data items. The common format of the sub-objects is shown below: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Length | Type | Sub-Type | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ // Value // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The following sub-objects are defined. The contents of these sub- objects are described in [UNI]: - Source TNA Address sub-object: Type = 1. The following sub-types are defined: Ipv4 (Sub-type = 1); Ipv6 (Sub-type = 2); NSAP (Sub-type = 3). - Destination TNA Address sub-object: Type = 2; The following sub-types are defined: Ipv4 (Sub-type = 1); Ipv6 (Sub-type = 2); NSAP (Sub-type = 3). - Diversity sub-object: Type = 3, Sub-type = 1. - Egress label sub-object: Type = 4, Sub-type = 1. - Service level sub-object: Type = 5, Sub-type = 1. 6.2 UNI_Ipv4_Session Object This object [RSVP-TE] has the following format: UNI_ IPv4_SESSION object: Class = 1, C-Type = TBA 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Length (16) | Class-Num(1) | C-Type (TBA) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IPv4 Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MUST be zero | Tunnel ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Extended IPv4 Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The C-Type value (to be assigned) will distinguish UNI-related RSVP Sessions from other RSVP sessions. The usage of this object is described in [UNI]. Expires on 4/10/02 Page 7 of 9 draft-oif-uni-signaling-extensions-00.txt 6.3 Error Codes UNI-specific errors fall under the "Routing Problem" (error code = 24) [RSVP-TE] and "Policy Control Failure" (error code = 2) [RSVP] errors, and they require the assignment of sub-codes. The following is the list of errors and proposed assignments of sub- codes: - Routing Problem: Diversity not available (Error code = 24, sub- code = 100) - Routing Problem: Service level not available (Error code = 24, sub-code = 101) - Routing problem: Invalid/Unknown connection ID (Error code = 24, sub-code = 102) - Policy control failure: Unauthorized sender (Error code = 2, sub- code = 100) - Policy control failure: Unauthorized receiver (Error code = 2, sub-code = 101) 7. IANA Considerations The OIF UNI 1.0 specification defines new messages, objects and error codes under LMP, LDP and RSVP. Majority of these extensions require code point assignments via IETF consensus action. These are summarized below. 7.1 LMP Messages and Objects Proposed message types 50, 51 and 52 as described in Sections 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 above. Proposed object class 51 as described in Section 4.4 above. The C- types under this class need not be administered by IANA, as this class is UNI-specific. 7.2 LDP Messages, TLVs and Status Codes Proposed message types 0x0420 and 0x0421 as described in Sections 5.1 and 5.2, respectively. Proposed TLV types 0x0960 - 0x0970 as described in Sections 5.3 - 5.9 above. UNI-specific status codes have been allocated out of the Private Use space, i.e., 0x3Fxxxxxx. These do not require IANA administration. 7.3 RSVP Object Class and Error Codes Proposed Generalized_UNI object class (Section 6.1), Class Number to be assigned (of the form 11bbbbbb).The C-types within this class need not be administered by IANA. Expires on 4/10/02 Page 8 of 9 draft-oif-uni-signaling-extensions-00.txt Proposed UNI_Ipv4_Session Object (Class-Num = 1, C-Type = TBA), as described in Section 6.2. UNI-specific errors fall under the Routing Problem and Policy Control Failure errors (error codes 24 and 2). Proposed sub-codes under error code 24 are 100, 101 and 102, as described in Section 6.2. Proposed sub-codes under error code 2 are 100 and 101, as described in Section 6.3. 8. References [GMPLS SIG] P. Ashwood-Smith, et al., "Generalized MPLS - Signaling Functional Description", Internet Draft, draft-ietf- mpls- generalized-signaling-06.txt, Work in Progress. [GMPLS RSVP-TE] P. Ashwood-Smith, et al., "Generalized MPLS - RSVP- TE Extensions", Internet Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te- -05.txt, Work in Progress. [GMPLS CR-LDP] P. Ashwood-Smith, et al., "Generalized MPLS - CR-LDP Extensions", Internet Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp- 03.txt, Work in Progress. [GMPLS SONET] E. Mannie, et al., "GMPLS Extensions for SONET and SDH Control," Internet Draft, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-01.txt, Work in Progress. [LMP] J.P Lang, et al, "Link Management Protocol", Internet Draft, draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-01.txt, Work in Progress. [RSVP] R. Braden, et al, "RSVP Functional Specification", RFC 2205. [RSVP-TE] D. Awduche, et al., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels," draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-tunnel-09.txt, Work in Progress. [UNI] UNI 1.0 Signaling Specification, The Optical Internetworking Forum, http://www.oiforum.com/public/liaisondocs.htm 9. Author Information Bala Rajagopalan Tellium, Inc. 2 Crescent Place Ocean Port, NJ 07757 Ph: +1-732-923-4237 Email: braja@tellium.com Expires on 4/10/02 Page 9 of 9