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 User-Network Interface (UNI)
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-01.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 a Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) based User-Network Interface (UNI). 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.
This document is the UNI companion to "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
Support For Metro Ethernet Forum and G.8011 Ethernet Service
Switching". This document does not define or limit the underlying
intra-domain or Internal NNI (I-NNI) technology used to support the
UNI.
Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 1]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-01.txt August 8, 2008
Table of Contents
1 Introduction .............................................. 3
1.1 Overview .................................................. 4
1.2 Conventions used in this document ......................... 5
2 Common Signaling Support .................................. 5
2.1 UNI Addressing ............................................ 5
2.2 Ethernet Endpoint (UNI) Identification .................... 6
2.2.1 Address Resolution ........................................ 6
2.3 Connection Identification ................................. 7
3 EPL Service ............................................... 7
4 EVPL Service .............................................. 7
4.1 Egress VLAN ID Control and VLAN ID preservation ........... 7
5 IANA Considerations ....................................... 8
5.1 Error Value: Routing Problem/Unknown Endpoint ............. 8
6 Security Considerations ................................... 8
7 References ................................................ 8
7.1 Normative References ...................................... 8
7.2 Informative References .................................... 9
8 Acknowledgments ........................................... 10
9 Author's Addresses ........................................ 10
10 Full Copyright Statement .................................. 10
11 Intellectual Property ..................................... 11
Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 2]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-01.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.
This document provides a method for GMPLS based control of LSPs that
support the transport services defined in the above documents at the
UNI network reference points. This document does not define or limit
the underlying intra-domain or Internal NNI (I-NNI) technology used
to support the UNI. This document makes use of the GMPLS extensions
defined in [GMPLS-ESVCS] and [GMPLS-EXT].
The scope of this document covers Ethernet UNI applications, and it
is intended to be consistent with the GMPLS overlay model presented
in [RFC4208] and aligned with GMPLS Core Network signaling. The
scope and reference model used in this document are represented in
Figure 1, which is based on Figure 1 of [RFC4208].
Figure 1 shows two core networks, each containing two core-nodes.
The core-nodes are labeled 'CN'. Connected to each CN is an edge-
node. The edge-nodes are labeled 'EN'. Each EN supports Ethernet
Networks and use Ethernet services provided by the core-nodes via a
UNI. Two services are represented; one EPL and one EVPL type
service. Signaling within the core network is out of scope of this
document and may include any technology that supports overlay UNI
services. The UNI function in the edge-node can be referred to as
the UNI client, or UNI-C, and in the CN as UNI network, or UNI-N.
Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 3]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-01.txt August 8, 2008
Ethernet Ethernet
Network UNI +----------+ +-----------+ UNI Network
+---------+ | | | | +---------+
| +----+ | | +-----+ | | +-----+ | | +----+ |
------+ | | EPL | | | | | | | | EPL | | +------
------+ EN +-+-----+--+ CN +---------+ CN +--+-----+-+ EN +------
| | | | +--+--| +---+ | | +--+-----+-+ | |
| +----+ | | | +--+--+ | | | +--+--+ | | +----+ |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
+---------+ | | | | | | | | +---------+
| | | | | | | |
+---------+ | | | | | | | | +---------+
| | | | +--+--+ | | | +--+--+ | | |
| +----+ | | | | | | +-----+ | | | +----+ |
------+ +-+--+ | | CN +---------+ CN | | | | +------
------+ EN +-+-----+--+ | | | | +--+-----+-+ EN +------
| | | |EVPL | +-----+ | | +-----+ |EVPL | | | |
| +----+ | | | | | | +----+ |
| | +----------+ |-----------+ | |
+---------+ Core Network(s) +---------+
Ethernet Ethernet
Network <-----> <-----> Network
Scope of this Document
Legend: EN - Edge Node
CN - Core Node
Figure 1: Ethernet UNI Reference Model
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 [GMPLS-ESVCS], [RFC4208], and
[RFC4974].
Support for P2P and MP2MP service is required by [G.8011] and
[MEF11]. P2P service delivery support is based on the GMPLS support
for Ethernet Services covered in [GMPLS-ESVCS]. As with [GMPLS-
ESVCS], 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
Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 4]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-01.txt August 8, 2008
interface. In MEF UNI Type 3, services may be established and
managed via a signaling interface. As with [GMPLS-ESVCS] this
document is aimed at supporting the MEF UNI Type 3 mode of operation
(and not MEF UNI Types 1 and 2). As mentioned above, this document
is limited to covering UNI specific topics.
Common procedures used to signal Ethernet connections 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.
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 a UNI
reference point for LSPs that provide the Ethernet Services described
in [GMPLS-ESVCS].
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, notably
[GMPLS-ESVCS], [GMPLS-EXT] and [RFC4208], MUST be followed in all
cases not explicitly described in this document.
2.1. UNI Addressing
LSPs providing Ethernet connections controlled via the mechanisms
defined in this document MUST use the addressing and other procedures
defined in [RFC4208]. Of note, this includes the use of the egress
edge-node's IP address in the end-point address field in the SESSION
object.
One issue that presents itself with the addressing approach taken in
[RFC4208] is that an ingress edge-node may not receive the egress
edge-node's IP address as part of the management, or other, request
that results in the initiation of a new Ethernet connection. This
case is covered as described in Section 7.2 of [RFC4974] and modified
below in Section 2.2.1.
Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 5]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-01.txt August 8, 2008
2.2. Ethernet Endpoint (UNI) Identification
UNI identification, except as noted below, MUST follow Ethernet
endpoint (UNI) identification as defined in [GMPLS-ESVCS]. There is
one additional case that is covered in this document where the scope
of the Ethernet endpoint identifier is relevant beyond the typical
case of just ingress and egress nodes.
2.2.1. Address Resolution
At the UNI reference point, it is possible for the ingress edge-node
to not have the egress edge-node's IP address when initiating an LSP.
This presents an issue as the egress edge-node's IP address is
carried in the SESSION object. This case is handled leveraging the
approach described in Section 7.2 of [RFC4974] to address call ID
assignment by the first core-node.
When an edge-node (the UNI-C) initiates an LSP and it has the egress
Ethernet endpoint identifier, but does not have its IP address, the
edge-node MUST create a Notify message as described in [RFC4974].
The Notify message MUST include the CALL_ATTRIBUTES object with the
Endpoint ID TLV defined [GMPLS-ESVCS]. The tunnel end point address
field of the SESSION object in the Notify message MUST be set to zero
(0). The message MUST be addressed and sent to an address associated
with the first core-node.
When a core-node, i.e., the node providing the network side of the
UNI (the UNI-N), receives a Notify message with the tunnel end point
address field of the SESSION object set to zero, it MUST locate the
Endpoint ID TLV in the CALL_ATTRIBUTES object. If the object or TLV
are not present, the node MUST discard the message. In this case, a
Message ID Acknowledgment MUST NOT be sent for the Notify message.
When the Endpoint ID TLV is located, the node MUST map the Endpoint
ID into an IP address associated with the egress edge-node. If the
node is unable to obtain an egress address, it MUST issue an error
response Notify messages according to Section 6.2.2. of [RFC4974].
The Error code and value SHOULD be "Routing Problem/Unknown
Endpoint." (To be assigned by IANA).
When the node is able to obtain an egress address, the end-point
address field of the SESSION object MUST be set to the obtained
address, and the Notify message should be sent according to the
standard processing defined in [RFC4974]. The downstream nodes will
then process the Notify according to standard processing rules.
When the ingress receives the response Notify message, it SHOULD
Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 6]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-01.txt August 8, 2008
identify the call based on the Endpoint ID TLV and, when not set to
zero on the corresponding setup Notify message, the short and long
Call IDs. The end-point address field of the SESSION object carried
in the response Notify message will include the egress' IP address.
This returned address MUST be used in all subsequent messages
associated with the Ethernet connection.
Note that the procedure described in this section MAY be used when
the Call IDs are generated by the initiating UNI or generated by the
first core-node.
2.3. Connection Identification
With one exception, UNI signaling for Ethernet connections MUST
follow the Connection Identification procedures defined in [GMPLS-
ESVCS]. The exception is that the procedures defined in Section 7.2
of [RFC4974] MAY be used to provide support for allocation of Call
IDs by the first core-node rather than by the initiating edge-node.
3. EPL Service
There are no additional UNI specific requirements for signaling LSPs
supporting Ethernet Private Line (EPL) services. The procedures
defined in [GMPLS-ESVCS], as modified above, MUST be followed when
signaling an LSPs supporting an EPL Service.
4. EVPL Service
There is one additional UNI specific requirements for signaling LSPs
supporting an EVPL type service. Except as modified above and by
this section, the procedures defined in [GMPLS-ESVCS] MUST be
followed when signaling an EVPL Service.
4.1. Egress VLAN ID Control and VLAN ID preservation
Per [MEF6], the mapping of the single VLAN ID used at the ingress UNI
to a different VLAN ID 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 [RFC4208], and not the mechanism define
in [GMPLS-ESVCS].
As is the case in [GMPLS-ESVCS], when the explicit label control
mechanism is not used VLAN IDs MUST be preserved, i.e., not modified,
Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 7]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-01.txt August 8, 2008
across the LSP.
5. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to administer assignment of new values for
namespaces defined in this document and reviewed in this section.
5.1. Error Value: Routing Problem/Unknown Endpoint
Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the assignment in
the "Error Codes and Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes" section
of the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters:
Error Code Meaning
24 Routing Problem [RFC3209]
This Error Code has the following globally-defined Error
Value sub-codes:
28* = Unknown Endpoint [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
[GMPLS-ESVCS] Berger, L., Papadimitriou, P., Fedyk, D.,
"Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support For Metro Ethernet
Forum and G.8011 Ethernet Service Switching", Work in
Progress, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-02.txt,
August 2008.
Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 8]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-01.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.
[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.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling - Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions",
RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC4208] Swallow, G., et al. "Generalized Multiprotocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) User-Network Interface (UNI): Resource
ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE) Support for the Overlay Model", RFC 4208,
October 2005.
[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.
[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.
[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.
Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 9]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-01.txt August 8, 2008
[MEF11] The Metro Ethernet Forum , "User Network
Interface (UNI) Requirements and Framework",
MEF 11, November 2004.
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 and Stephen Shew for
their valuable comments.
9. Author's Addresses
Lou Berger
LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Phone: +1-301-468-9228
Email: lberger@labn.net
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.
Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 10]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-01.txt August 8, 2008
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.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 11]
Generated on: Fri Aug 8 10:17:27 EDT 2008
