Internet Draft Lou Berger (LabN)
Category: Standards Track Don Fedyk (Nortel)
Expiration Date: February 8, 2009
August 8, 2008
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support For Metro Ethernet Forum
and G.8011 Ethernet Service Switching
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-02.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 February 8, 2009.
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 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 & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 1]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-02.txt August 8, 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 IANA Considerations ....................................... 12
5.1 Endpoint ID Attributes TLV ................................ 13
5.2 Line LSP Encoding ......................................... 13
6 Security Considerations ................................... 13
7 References ................................................ 13
7.1 Normative References ...................................... 13
7.2 Informative References .................................... 14
8 Acknowledgments ........................................... 15
9 Author's Addresses ........................................ 15
10 Full Copyright Statement .................................. 16
11 Intellectual Property ..................................... 16
Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 2]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-02.txt August 8, 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 [ETH-TRAFFIC] and the generic extensions defined in
[GMPLS-EXT].
1.1. Overview
This document uses a 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
uses the extensions defined in [GMPLS-EXT].
Two types of connectivity between Ethernet endpoints are defined in
[MEF6] and [G.8011]: point-to-point (P2P) and multipoint-to-
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
Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 3]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-02.txt August 8, 2008
[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 [ETH-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.
Procedures related to signaling switching in support of EVPL services
are described in Section 4.
Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 4]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-02.txt August 8, 2008
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 a new CALL_ATTRIBUTES TLV defined in
this document. 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
CALL_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 CALL_ATTRIBUTES object in a Notify
message.
Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 5]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-02.txt August 8, 2008
2.1.1. Endpoint ID TLV
The Endpoint ID TLV follows the Attributes TLV format defined in
[GMPLS-MRN]. The Endpoint ID 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 |
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type and Length fields are defined in [GMPLS-MRN]. Note that as
defined in [GMPLS-MRN], the Length field is set to length of the
whole TLV including the Type, Length and Endpoint ID fields.
Endpoint ID
The Endpoint ID field is a variable size field that carries an
endpoint identifier, see [MEF10.1] and [G.8011]. This field
MUST be null padded as defined in [GMPLS-MRN].
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], a
CALL_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].
A CALL_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
[4420BIS].
Transit nodes supporting this document MUST propagate the Endpoint ID
TLV without modification.
Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 6]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-02.txt August 8, 2008
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 [ETH-TRAFFIC]. These parameters are carried in
the FLOWSPEC and TSPEC objects as discussed in [ETH-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 [ETH-TRAFFIC] in the FLOWSPEC and
TSPEC objects. Additionally, the Switching Granularity field of the
Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object MUST be set to zero (0).
Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 7]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-02.txt August 8, 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. [ETH-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=3 | Length=8 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IL2CP | EL2CP | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
See [ETH-TRAFFIC] for a description of the Type and Length fields.
Per [ETH-TRAFFIC], the Type field MUST be set to two (2), and the
Length field MUST be set to eight (8) 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 & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 8]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-02.txt August 8, 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 [ETH-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 & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 9]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-02.txt August 8, 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 [GMPLS-EXT]
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: 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 & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 10]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-02.txt August 8, 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 [GMPLS-EXT]. 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 either 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 & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 11]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-02.txt August 8, 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,
[GMPLS-EXT], 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. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to administer assignment of new values for
namespaces defined in this document and reviewed in this section.
Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 12]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-02.txt August 8, 2008
5.1. Endpoint ID Attributes TLV
Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the assignment in
the "CALL_ATTRIBUTES TLV Space" section of the "RSVP TE Parameters"
registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-
parameters:
Type Name Reference
---- ----------- ---------
2* Endpoint ID [This document]
(*) Suggested value.
5.2. 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.
6. 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.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[ETH-TRAFFIC] Papadimitriou, D., "Ethernet Traffic Parameters,"
draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-traffic-parameters-05.txt,
Work in progress, July 12, 2008.
Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 13]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-02.txt August 8, 2008
[GMPLS-EXT] Berger, L., Papadimitriou, P., Fedyk, D.,
"Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Data Channel Switching
Capable (DCSC) and Channel Set Label Extensions",
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-00.txt,
Work in Progress, August 2008.
[GMPLS-MRN] Papadimitriou, D. et al, "Generalized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (GMPLS) Protocol Extensions for
Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks (MLN/MRN)",
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-extensions-02.txt,
Work in progress, July 2008.
[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.
[RFC4003] Berger, L., "GMPLS Signaling Procedure for Egress
Control", RFC 4003, February 2005.
[4420BIS] 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)",
draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc4420bis-03.txt,
Work in progress, May 27, 2008,
[RFC4974] Papadimitriou, D., Farrel, A. "Generalized MPLS
(GMPLS) RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in support of Calls",
RFC 4974, August 2007.
7.2. Informative References
[G.8011] ITU-T G.8011/Y.1307, "Ethernet over Transport
Ethernet services framework", August 2004.
Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 14]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-02.txt August 8, 2008
[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-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-01.txt,
August 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.
8. Acknowledgments
Dimitri Papadimitriou provided substantial textual contributions to
this document and coauthored earlier versions of this document.
The authors would like to thank Evelyne Roch, Stephen Shew, and Yoav
Cohen for their valuable comments.
9. Author's Addresses
Lou Berger
LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Phone: +1-301-468-9228
Email: lberger@labn.net
Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 15]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-02.txt August 8, 2008
Don Fedyk
Nortel Networks
600 Technology Park Drive
Billerica, MA, 01821
Phone: +1-978-288-3041
Email: dwfedyk@nortel.com
10. 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.
11. 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.
Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 16]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-02.txt August 8, 2008
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 17]
Generated on: Fri Aug 8 09:53:58 EDT 2008
