Internet Draft Lou Berger (LabN) Updates: 3471, 3473, 3945, 4202 Category: Standards Track Don Fedyk (Nortel) Expiration Date: October 14, 2008 April 14, 2008 Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support For Metro Ethernet Forum and G.8011 Ethernet Service Switching draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-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/1id-abstracts.html The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html This Internet-Draft will expire on October 14, 2008. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). Abstract This document describes a method for controlling two specific types of Ethernet switching via Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS). This document supports the types of switching required to implied by the Ethernet services that have been defined in the context of the Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) and International Telecommunication Union (ITU) G.8011. Specifically, switching in support of Ethernet private line service and Ethernet virtual private line service. Support for MEF and ITU defined parameters are also covered. Some of the extensions defined in this document are generic in nature and not specific to Ethernet. Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 1]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-00.txt April 14, 2008 Table of Contents 1 Introduction .............................................. 3 1.1 Overview .................................................. 3 1.2 Conventions used in this document ......................... 5 2 Common Signaling Support .................................. 5 2.1 Ethernet Endpoint Identification .......................... 5 2.1.1 Endpoint ID TLV ........................................... 6 2.2 Connection Identification ................................. 7 2.2.1 Procedures ................................................ 7 2.3 Traffic Parameters ........................................ 7 2.3.1 L2 Control Protocol TLV ................................... 8 2.4 Bundling and VLAN Identification .......................... 9 3 EPL Service ............................................... 9 3.1 EPL Service Parameters .................................... 10 4 EVPL Service .............................................. 10 4.1 EVPL Generalized Label Format ............................. 11 4.2 Egress VLAN ID Control and VLAN ID preservation ........... 11 4.3 Single Call - Single LSP .................................. 12 4.4 Single Call - Multiple LSPs ............................... 12 5 Generic GMPLS Extensions .................................. 12 5.1 Notify Message Format ..................................... 13 5.2 Data Channel Switching .................................... 13 5.3 Generalized Channel_Set Label Related Formats ............. 14 5.3.1 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST Object .............. 14 5.3.2 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object ...................... 14 5.3.3 Other Label related Objects ............................... 17 6 IANA Considerations ....................................... 17 6.1 Endpoint ID Attributes TLV ................................ 17 6.2 Line LSP Encoding ......................................... 17 6.3 Data Channel Switching Type ............................... 18 6.4 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST Object .............. 18 6.5 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object ...................... 18 7 Security Considerations ................................... 19 8 References ................................................ 19 8.1 Normative References ...................................... 19 8.2 Informative References .................................... 20 9 Acknowledgments ........................................... 21 10 Author's Addresses ........................................ 21 11 Full Copyright Statement .................................. 21 12 Intellectual Property ..................................... 22 Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 2]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-00.txt April 14, 2008 1. Introduction [MEF6] and [G.8011] provide parallel frameworks for defining network- oriented characteristics of Ethernet services in transport networks. The framework discusses general Ethernet connection characteristics, Ethernet User-Network Interfaces (UNIs) and Ethernet Network-Network Interfaces (NNIs). Within this framework, [G.8011.1] defines the Ethernet Private Line (EPL) service and [G.8011.2] defines the Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) service. [MEF6] covers both service types. [MEF10.1] defines service parameters and [MEF11] provides UNI requirements and framework. [MEF6] and [G.8011] are focused on service interfaces and not the underlying technology used to support the service. For example, [G.8011] refers to the defined services being transported over one of several possible "server layers". This document focuses on the types of switching that may directly support these services and provides a method for GMPLS based control of such switching technologies. This document defines the GMPLS extensions needed to support such switching, but does not define the UNI or External NNI (E-NNI) reference points. See [GMPLS-MEF-UNI] for a description of the UNI reference point. This document makes use of the traffic parameters defined in [MEF-TRAFFIC]. Some of the extensions defined in this document are generic in nature and not specific to Ethernet, or [MEF6] and [G.8011] related switching. [AUTHORS' NOTE: These extensions are presented in a separate section and may be split into their own document as this work progresses.] 1.1. Overview This document uses a largely common approach to supporting the switching implied by the Ethernet services defined in [MEF6], [G.8011.1] and [G.8011.2]. The approach builds on standard GMPLS mechanisms to deliver the required control capabilities. This document reuses the GMPLS mechanisms specified in [RFC3473] and [RFC4974]. The document also expands expands the set of signaling parameters in a fashion consistent with existing GMPLS signaling. [AUTHORS' NOTE: As mentioned above, several extensions defined in this document are generic in nature and may be moved into their own document as this work progresses.] Two types of connectivity between Ethernet endpoints are defined in [MEF6] and [G.8011]: point-to-point (P2P) and multipoint-to- Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 3]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-00.txt April 14, 2008 multipoint (MP2MP). [MEF6] uses the term Ethernet Line (E-line) to refer to point-to-point virtual connections, and Ethernet LAN (E-LAN) to refer to multipoint-to-multipoint virtual connections. [G.8011] also identifies point-to-multipoint (P2MP) as an area for "further study." Within the context of GMPLS, support is defined for point- to-point unidirectional and bidirectional TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs), see [RFC3473], and unidirectional point-to-multipoint TE LSPs, see [RFC4875]. Support for P2P and MP2MP service is required by [G.8011] and [MEF11]. Note that while [MEF11] requires MP2MP, [G.8011.1] and [G.8011.2] only require P2P. There is a clear correspondence between E-Line/P2P service and GMPLS P2P TE LSPs, and support for such LSPs are included in the scope of this document. There is no such clear correspondence between E-LAN/MP2MP service and GMPLS TE LSPs. Although it is possible to emulate the service using multiple P2P or P2MP TE LSPs. The definition of support for MP2MP service is left for future study and is not addressed in this document. [MEF11] defines multiple types of control for UNI Ethernet services. In MEF UNI Type 1, services are configured manually. In MEF UNI Type 2, services may be configured manually or via a link management interface. In MEF UNI Type 3, services may be established and managed via a signaling interface. From the MEF perspective, this document along with [GMPLS-MEF-UNI] are aimed at the network control needed to support the MEF UNI Type 3 mode of operation. [G.8011.1], [G.8011.2] and [MEF11] together with [MEF10.1] define a set of service attributes that are associated with each Ethernet connection. Some of these attributes are based on the provisioning of the local physical connection and are not modifiable or selectable per connection. Other attributes are specific to a particular connection, or must be consistent across the connection. The approach taken in this document to communicate these attributes is to exclude the static class of attributes from signaling. This class of attributes will not be explicitly discussed in this document. The other class of attributes are communicated via signaling and will be reviewed in the sections below. The major attributes that will be supported in signaling include: - Endpoint identifiers - Connection identifiers - Traffic parameters (see [MEF-TRAFFIC]) - Bundling / VLAN IDs map (EVPL only) - VLAN ID Preservation (EVPL only) Common procedures used to support Ethernet LSPs are described in Section 2 of this document. Procedures related to signaling switching in support of EPL services are described in Section 3. Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 4]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-00.txt April 14, 2008 Procedures related to signaling switching in support of EVPL services are described in Section 4. Section 5 covers the generic GMPLS extensions proposed by this document. 1.2. Conventions used in this document The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 2. Common Signaling Support This section describes the common mechanisms for supporting GMPLS signaled control of LSPs that provide Ethernet connections as defined in [MEF11], [G.8011.1] and [G.8011.2]. Except as specifically modified in this document, the procedures related to the processing of RSVP objects is not modified by this document. The relevant procedures in existing documents, such as [RFC3473], MUST be followed in all cases not explicitly described in this document. 2.1. Ethernet Endpoint Identification Ethernet endpoint identifiers, as they are defined in [G.8011] and [MEF10.1], differ significantly from the identifiers used by GMPLS. Specifically, the Ethernet endpoint identifiers are character based as apposed to the GMPLS norm of being IP address based. The approach taken by this document to address this disparity leverages the solution used for connection identification, see Section 2.2 and [RFC4974], and the LSP attributes object, see [RFC4420]. The solution makes use of the [RFC4974] short call ID, and supports the Ethernet endpoint identifier much like [RFC4974] supports the long call ID. That is, the SENDER_TEMPLATE and SESSION objects carry IP addresses and a short call ID, and long identifiers are carried in the attributes object. As with the long call ID, the Ethernet endpoint identifier is typically only relevant at the ingress and egress nodes. As defined below, the Ethernet endpoint identifier is carried in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object in a new TLV. The new TLV is referred to as the Endpoint ID TLV. The processing of the Endpoint ID TLV parallels the processing of the long call ID in [RFC4974]. This processing requires the inclusion of the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object in a Notify Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 5]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-00.txt April 14, 2008 message, see Section 5.1. 2.1.1. Endpoint ID TLV The Endpoint ID TLV follows the Attributes TLV format defined in [RFC4420]. The Endpoint ID TLV has uses the Type value of TBA (by IANA). The TLV 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type (TBA) | Length (variable) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Endpoint ID | | ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ See [RFC4420] for a description of the Type and Length fields. Note that per [RFC4420], the Length field is set to the unpadded length of the Endpoint ID field. Endpoint ID The Endpoint ID field is a variable length field that carries an endpoint identifier, see [MEF10.1] and [G.8011]. This field MUST be null padded as defined in [RFC4420]. 2.1.1.1. Procedures The use of the Endpoint ID TLV is required during call management. When a call is established or torn down per [RFC4974], an LSP_ATTRIBUTES object containing an Endpoint ID TLV MUST be included in the Notify message along with the Long Call ID. Short Call ID processing, including those procedures related to call and connection processing, is not modified by this document and MUST proceed according to [RFC4974]. An LSP_ATTRIBUTES object containing an Endpoint ID TLV MAY be included in the signaling messages of an LSP (connection) associated with an established call. Such objects are processed according to [RFC4420]. Transit nodes supporting this document MUST propagate the Endpoint ID Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 6]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-00.txt April 14, 2008 TLV without modification. 2.2. Connection Identification Signaling for Ethernet connections follows the procedures defined in [RFC4974]. In particular the Call related mechanisms are reused to support endpoint identification. In the context of Ethernet connections, a call only exists when one or more LSPs (connections in [RFC4974] terms) are present. An LSP will always be established within the context of a call and, typically, only one LSP will be used per call. See Section 4.4 for the case where more than one LSP may exist within a call. 2.2.1. Procedures Any node that supports Ethernet connections MUST be able to accept and process call setups per [RFC4974]. Ethernet connections established according to this document MUST treat the Ethernet (virtual) connection identifier as the long "Call identifier (ID)", described in [RFC4974]. The short Call ID MUST be used as described in [RFC4974]. Use of the LINK_CAPABILITY object is OPTIONAL. Both network-initiated and user-initiated Calls MUST be supported. When establishing an Ethernet connection the initiator MUST first establish a Call per the procedures defined in [RFC4974]. LSP management, including removal and addition, then follows [RFC4974]. As stated in [RFC4974], once a Call is established the initiator SHOULD establish at least one Ethernet LSP. Also, when the last LSP associated with a Call is removed, the Call SHOULD be torn down per the procedures in [RFC4974]. 2.3. Traffic Parameters Several types of service attributes are carried in the traffic parameters defined in [MEF-TRAFFIC]. These parameters are carried in the FLOWSPEC and TSPEC objects as discussed in [MEF-TRAFFIC]. The service attributes that are carried are: - Bandwidth Profile - VLAN CoS Preservation - Layer Two (L2) Control Protocol Processing (see Section 2.3.1) Ethernet connections established according to this document MUST use the traffic parameters defined in [MEF-TRAFFIC] in the FLOWSPEC and TSPEC objects. Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 7]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-00.txt April 14, 2008 2.3.1. L2 Control Protocol TLV [MEF10.1], [8011.1] and [8011.2] define service attributes that impact the layer two (L2) control protocol processing at the ingress and egress. [MEF-TRAFFIC] does not define support for these service attributes, but does allow the attributes to be carried in a TLV. This section defines the L2 Control Protocol (L2CP) TLV to carry the L2 control protocol processing related service attributes. The format of the L2 Control Protocol (L2CP) TLV 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type=2 | Length=4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IL2CP | EL2CP | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ See [MEF-TRAFFIC] for a description of the Type and Length fields. Per [MEF-TRAFFIC], the Type field MUST be set to two (2), and the Length field MUST be set to four (4) for the L2CP TLV. Ingress Layer 2 Control Processing (IL2CP): 4 bits This field controls processing of Layer 2 Control Protocols on a receiving interface. Valid usage is service specific, see [MEF10.1], [8011.1] and [8011.2]. Permitted values are: Value Description Reference ----- ----------- --------- 0 Reserved 1 Discard/Block [MEF10.1], [8011.1] and [8011.2] 2 Peer/Process [MEF10.1], [8011.1] and [8011.2] 3 Pass to EVC/Pass [MEF10.1], [8011.1] and [8011.2] 4 Peer and Pass to EVC [MEF10.1] Egress Layer 2 Control Processing (EL2CP): 4 bits This field controls processing of Layer 2 Control Protocols on a transmitting interface. When MEF services are used a value of 1 MUST be used, other valid usage is service specific, see [8011.1] and [8011.2]. Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 8]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-00.txt April 14, 2008 Permitted values are: Value Description Reference ----- ----------- --------- 0 Reserved 1 Based on IL2CP Value [MEF10.1] 2 Generate [8011.1] and [8011.2] 3 None [8011.1] and [8011.2] 4 Reserved Reserved: 24 bits This field is reserved. It MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt. This field SHOULD be passed unmodified by transit nodes. Ethernet connections established according to this document MUST include the L2CP TLV in the [MEF-TRAFFIC] traffic parameters carried in the FLOWSPEC and TSPEC objects. 2.4. Bundling and VLAN Identification The control of bundling and listing of VLAN identifiers is only supported for EVPL services. EVPL service specific details are provided in Section 4. 3. EPL Service Both [MEF6] and [G.8011.1] define an Ethernet Private Line (EPL) services. In the words of [G.8011.1], EPL services carry "Ethernet characteristic information over dedicated bandwidth, point-to-point connections, provided by SDH, ATM, MPLS, PDH, ETY or OTH server layer networks." [G.8011.1] defines two types of Ethernet Private Line (EPL) services. Both types present a service where all data presented on a port is transported to the corresponding connect port. The types differ in that EPL type 1 service operates at the MAC frame layer, while EPL type 2 service operates at the line (e.g., 8B/10B) encoding layer. [MEF6] only defines one type of EPL service, and it matches [G.8011.1] EPL type 1 service. Signaling for LSPs that support both types of EPL services are detailed below. Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 9]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-00.txt April 14, 2008 3.1. EPL Service Parameters Signaling for the EPL service types only differ in the LSP Encoding Type used. The LSP Encoding Type used for each are: EPL Service LSP Encoding Type ----------- ----------------- Type 1/MEF Ethernet (2) [RFC3471] Type 2 Line (e.g., 8B/10B) (TBA by IANA) The other LSP parameters specific to EPL Service are: Parameter Value -------------- ----- Switching Type DCSC (See Section 5.2) G-PID Ethernet (33) [RFC3471] The parameters defined in this section MUST be used when establishing and controlling LSPs that provide EPL service type Ethernet switching. The procedures defined in Section 2 and the other procedures defined in [RFC3473] for the establishment and management of bidirectional LSPs MUST be followed when establishing and controlling LSPs that provide EPL service type Ethernet switching. 4. EVPL Service EVPL service is defined within the context of both [G.8011.2] and [MEF6]. EVPL service allows for multiple Ethernet connections per port, each of which supports a specific set of VLAN IDs. The service attributes identify different forms of EVPL services, e.g., bundled or unbundled. Independent of the different forms, LSPs supporting EVPL Ethernet type switching are signaled using the same mechanisms to communicate the one or more VLAN IDs associated with a particular LSP (Ethernet connection). The relevant [RFC3471] parameter values that MUST be used for EVPL connections are: Parameter Value -------------- ----- Switching Type TBD [NOTE: use of L2SC under discussion] LSP Encoding Type Ethernet (2) G-PID Ethernet (33) As with EPL, the procedures defined in Section 2 and the other procedures defined in [RFC3473] for the establishment and management Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 10]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-00.txt April 14, 2008 of bidirectional LSPs MUST be followed when establishing and controlling LSPs that provide EVPL service type Ethernet switching. LSPs that provide EVPL service type Ethernet switching MUST use the EVPL Generalized Label Format per Section 4.1, and the Generalized Channel_Set Label Objects per Section 5.2. A notable implication of bundled EVPL services and carrying multiple VLAN IDs is that a Path message may grow to be larger than a single (fragmented or non- fragmented) IP packet. The basic approach to solving this is to allow for multiple LSPs which are associated with a single call, see Section 2.2. The specifics of this approach are describe below in Section 4.4. 4.1. EVPL Generalized Label Format Bundled EVPL services requires the use of a service specific label, called the EVPL Generalized Label. For consistency, Non-bundled EVPL services also use the same label. The format for the Generalized Label (Label Type value 2) used with EVPL services is: 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Rsvd | VLAN ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Reserved: 4 bits This field is reserved. It MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt. This field SHOULD be passed unmodified by transit nodes. VLAN ID: 12 bits A VLAN identifier. 4.2. Egress VLAN ID Control and VLAN ID preservation Per [MEF6], the mapping of the single VLAN ID used at the incoming interface of the ingress to a different VLAN ID at the outgoing interface at the egress UNI is allowed for EVPL services that do not support both bundling and VLAN ID preservation. Such a mapping MUST be requested and signaled based on the explicit label control mechanism defined in [RFC3473] and clarified in [RFC4003]. Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 11]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-00.txt April 14, 2008 When the explicit label control mechanism is not used, VLAN IDs MUST be preserved, i.e., not modified, across an LSP. 4.3. Single Call - Single LSP For simplicity in management, a single LSP SHOULD be used for each EVPL type LSP whose Path and Resv messages fit within a single unfragmented IP packet. This allows the reuse of all standard LSP modification procedures. Of particular note is the modification of the VLAN IDs associated with the Ethernet connection. Specifically, per Section 5.3, make-before-break procedures SHOULD be used to modify the Channel_Set LABEL object. 4.4. Single Call - Multiple LSPs Multiple LSPs MAY be used to support an EVPL service connection. All such LSPs MUST be established within the same call and follow call related procedures, see Section 2.2. The primary purpose of multiple LSPs is to support the case where the related objects result in a Path message being larger than a single unfragmented IP packet. When using multiple LSPs, all LSPs associated with the same call / EVPL connection MUST be signaled with the same LSP objects with the exception of the SENDER_TEMPLATE, SESSION and label related objects. All such LSPs SHOULD share resources. When using multiple LSPs, VLAN IDs MAY be added to the EVPL connection using either a new LSP or make-before-break procedures, see [RFC3209]. Make-before-break procedures on individual LSPs SHOULD be used to remove VLAN IDs. To change other service parameters it is necessary to resignal all LSPs associated with the call via make-before-break procedures. 5. Generic GMPLS Extensions This section presents extensions to GMPLS that, while motivated by EPL and EVPL service, are generic in nature and may be useful to any switching technology controlled via GMPLS. [AUTHORS' NOTE: The extensions presented in this section and may be split into one or more independent documents as this work progresses.] Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 12]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-00.txt April 14, 2008 5.1. Notify Message Format The Notify message format is extended based on the format defined in [RFC4974] to allow for the use of the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object as defined in this document. The inclusion of an LSP_ATTRIBUTES object in Notify messages is optional. When present, the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object SHOULD follow the SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object. The format of the Notify Message is updated as follows: <Notify message> ::= see [RFC4974] <notify session> ::= <SESSION> [ <ADMIN_STATUS> ] [ <POLICY_DATA> ...] [ <LINK_CAPABILITY> ] [ <SESSION_ATTRIBUTE> ] [ <LSP_ATTRIBUTES> ] [ <sender descriptor> | <flow descriptor> ] <sender descriptor> ::= see [RFC3473] <flow descriptor> ::= see [RFC3473] 5.2. Data Channel Switching Current GMPLS switching types are defined in [RFC3945] and [RFC3471] and support switching at the packet (PSC), frame (L2SC), time-slot (TDM), frequency (LSC) and fiber (FSC) granularities. One type of switching that is not well represented in this current set switching that takes all data received on an ingress port and switches it through a network to an egress port. While there are similarities between this level of switching and the "opaque single wavelength" case described in Section 3.5 of [RFC4202], such port-to-port switching is not limited to the optical switching technology implied by the LSC type. Therefore, a new switching type is defined. The new switching type is called Data Channel Switching Capable (DCSC). (Port switching seems a more intuitive name, but it collides with PSC so isn't used.) DCSC interfaces are able to support switching of the whole digital channel presented on single channel interfaces. Interfaces that inherently support multiple channels, e.g., WDM and channelized TDM interfaces, are specifically excluded from this type. Any interface that can be represented as a single digital channel are included. Examples include concatenated TDM and line encoded interfaces. Framed interfaces may also be included when they support switching on an interface granularity. Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 13]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-00.txt April 14, 2008 DCSC is represented in GMPLS, see [RFC3471] and [RFC4202], using the value TBA (by IANA). Port labels, as defined in [RFC3471], SHOULD be used for LSPs signaled using the DCSC Switching Type. 5.3. Generalized Channel_Set Label Related Formats This section defines a new type of generalized label and updates related objects. This section updates the label related definitions of [RFC3473]. The ability to communicate more than one label as part of the same LSP was motivated by the support for the communication of one or more VLAN IDs, but the formats defined in this section are not technology specific and may be useful for other switching technologies. 5.3.1. Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST Object The Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST object is used to indicate that the Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object is to be used with the associated LSP. The format of the Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST object is the same as the Generalized LABEL_REQUEST object and uses of C-Type of TBA. 5.3.2. Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object The Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object communicates one or more labels, all of which can be used equivalently in the data path associated with a single LSP. The format of the Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object is based on the LABEL_SET object defined in [RFC3473]. It differs from the the LABEL_SET object in that the full set may be represented in a single object rather than the multiple objects required by the [RFC3473] LABEL_SET object. The object MUST be used on LSPs that use the Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST object. The object MUST be processed per [RFC3473]. Make-before- break procedures, see [RFC3209], SHOULD be used when modifying the Channel_Set LABEL object. Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 14]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-00.txt April 14, 2008 The format of the Generalized Channel_Set LABEL object 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Length | Class-Num (16)| C-Type (TBA) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Channel_Set Sub-Object 1 | | ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ : : : : : : +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Channel_Set Sub-Object N | | ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The Channel_Set Sub-Object size is measured in bytes and MUST always be a multiple of 4, and at least 4, and 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Action | Num Subchannels | Label Type | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Subchannel 1 | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ... | : +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ : : : : : : : : : : : : : +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Subchannel N | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ... | Padding | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Action: 8 bits See [RFC3471] for definition of actions. Range actions SHOULD be used when possible to minimize the size of the Channel_Set LABEL Object. Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 15]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-00.txt April 14, 2008 Number of Subchannels: 10 bits Indicates the number of subchannels carried in the sub-object. When the number of subchannels required exceeds the limit of the field, i.e., 1024, multiple Channel_Set Sub-Objects MUST be used. Note that the size of the sub-object may result in a Path message being larger than a single unfragmented IP packet. See section 4.4 for an example of how this case may be handled. A value of zero (0) has special meaning and MAY be used in either the LABEL or UPSTREAM_LABEL object. A value of zero (0) is used in a LABEL or UPSTREAM_LABEL object to indicate that the subchannel(s) used in the corresponding (downstream or upstream) direction MUST match the subchannel(s) carried in the reverse directions label object. When value of zero (0) is used, no Subchannels are included in the Channel_Set Sub-Object and only one Channel_Set Sub-Object may be present. The zero (0) value MUST NOT be used in both the LABEL and UPSTREAM_LABEL object of the same LSP. Label Type: 14 bits See [RFC3473] for a description of this field. Subchannel: Variable See [RFC3471] for a description of this field. Note that this field may not be 32 bit aligned. Padding: Variable Padding is used to ensure that the length of a Channel_Set Sub- Object meets the multiple of 4 byte size requirement stated above. The field is only required when the Subchannel field is not 32 bit aligned and the number of included Subchannel fields result in the Sub-Object not being 32 bit aligned. The Padding field MUST be included when the number of bits represented in all the Subchannel fields included in a Generalized Channel_Set Sub-Object result in the Sub-Object not being 32 bit aligned. When present, the Padding field MUST have a length that results in the Sub-Object being 32 bit aligned. When present, the Padding field MUST be set to a zero (0) value on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt. These bits SHOULD be passed through unmodified by transit nodes. Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 16]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-00.txt April 14, 2008 5.3.3. Other Label related Objects The previous section introduces a new LABEL object. As such the formats of the other label related objects are also impacted. Processing of these objects is not modified and remain per their respective specifications. The other label related objects are defined in [RFC3473] and include: - SUGGESTED_LABEL object - LABEL_SET object - ACCEPTABLE_LABEL_SET object - UPSTREAM_LABEL object - RECOVERY_LABEL object 6. IANA Considerations IANA is requested to administer assignment of new values for namespaces defined in this document and reviewed in this section. 6.1. Endpoint ID Attributes TLV Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the assignment in the "Attributes TLV Space" section of the "RSVP TE Parameters" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te- parameters: Allowed on Allowed on Type Name LSP_ATTRIBUTES LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Reference ---- ----------- -------------- ----------------------- --------- 2* Endpoint ID Yes Yes [This document] (*) Suggested value. 6.2. Line LSP Encoding Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the assignment in the "LSP Encoding Types" section of the "GMPLS Signaling Parameters" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig- parameters: Value Type Reference ----- --------------------------- --------- 14* Line (e.g., 8B/10B) [This document] (*) Suggested value. Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 17]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-00.txt April 14, 2008 6.3. Data Channel Switching Type Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the assignment in the "Switching Types" section of the "GMPLS Signaling Parameters" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig- parameters: Value Type Reference ----- --------------------------- --------- 125* Data Channel Switching Capable (DCSC) [This document] (*) Suggested value. 6.4. Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST Object Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the assignment in the "Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types" section of the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters. A new class type for the existing LABEL_REQUEST Object class number (19) with the following definition: Class Types or C-Types: 5* Generalized Channel_Set [This document] (*) Suggested value. 6.5. Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the assignment in the "Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types" section of the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters. A new class type for the existing RSVP_LABEL Object class number (16) with the following definition: Class Types or C-Types: 4* Generalized Channel_Set [This document] (*) Suggested value. Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 18]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-00.txt April 14, 2008 7. Security Considerations This document introduces new message object formats for use in GMPLS signaling [RFC3473]. It does not introduce any new signaling messages, nor change the relationship between LSRs that are adjacent in the control plane. As such, this document introduces no additional security considerations. See [RFC3473] for relevant security considerations. 8. References 8.1. Normative References [MEF-TRAFFIC] Papadimitriou, D., "MEF Ethernet Traffic Parameters," draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-traffic-parameters-03.txt, Work in progress, November 2007. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels," RFC 2119. [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V. and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. [RFC3471] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, January 2003. [RFC3473] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling - Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. [RFC3945] Mannie, E., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004. [RFC4003] Berger, L., "GMPLS Signaling Procedure for Egress Control", RFC 4003, February 2005. [RFC4202] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005. Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 19]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-00.txt April 14, 2008 [RFC4420] Farrel, A., et al. "Encoding of Attributes for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Establishment Using Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 4420, February 2006. [RFC4974] Papadimitriou, D., Farrel, A. "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in support of Calls", RFC 4974, August 2007. 8.2. Informative References [G.8011] ITU-T G.8011/Y.1307, "Ethernet over Transport Ethernet services framework", August 2004. [G.8011.1] ITU-T G.G.8011.1/Y.1307.1, "Ethernet private line service", August 2004. [G.8011.2] ITU-T G.8011.2/Y.1307.2, "Ethernet virtual private line service", September 2005. [GMPLS-MEF-UNI] Berger, L., Papadimitriou, P., Fedyk, D., "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support For Metro Ethernet Forum and G.8011 User-Network Interface (UNI)", Work in Progress, draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-02.txt, February 2008. [MEF6] The Metro Ethernet Forum, "Ethernet Services Definitions - Phase I", MEF 6, June 2004 [MEF10.1] The Metro Ethernet Forum, "Ethernet Services Attributes Phase 2", MEF 10.1, November 2006. [MEF11] The Metro Ethernet Forum , "User Network Interface (UNI) Requirements and Framework", MEF 11, November 2004. [RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Papadimitriou, P., Yasukawa, S., Eds, "Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875, May 2007. Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 20]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-00.txt April 14, 2008 9. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Evelyne Roch and Stephen Shew for their valuable comments. 10. Author's Addresses Lou Berger LabN Consulting, L.L.C. Phone: +1-301-468-9228 Email: lberger@labn.net Dimitri Papadimitriou Alcatel Lucent Francis Wellesplein 1, B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium Phone: +32 3 240-8491 Email: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel-lucent.be Don Fedyk Nortel Networks 600 Technology Park Drive Billerica, MA, 01821 Phone: +1-978-288-3041 Email: dwfedyk@nortel.com 11. Full 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. 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. Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 21]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-00.txt April 14, 2008 12. Intellectual Property 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. 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. Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA). Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 22]
Generated on: Mon Apr 14 18:11:06 EDT 2008
