MPLS Working Group M. Bocci
Internet-Draft Alcatel-Lucent
Intended status: Standards Track G. Swallow
Expires: May 14, 2010 Cisco
November 10, 2009
MPLS-TP Identifiers
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers-00
Abstract
This document specifies identifiers for MPLS-TP objects. Included
are identifiers conformant to existing ITU conventions and
identifiers which are compatible with existing IP, MPLS, GMPLS, and
Pseudowire definitions.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 14, 2010.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Bocci & Swallow Expires May 14, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Identifiers November 2009
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Named Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Uniquely Identifying an Operator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. The Global ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. ITU Carrier Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Node and Interface Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. MPLS-TP Tunnel and LSP Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. MPLS-TP Tunnel Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. MPLS-TP LSP Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.3. Mapping to GMPLS Signalling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Pseudowire Path Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Maintenance Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1. Maintenance Entity Group Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1.1. ICC based MEG_IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1.2. IP Compatible MEG_IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1.2.1. MPLS-TP Tunnel MEG_IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1.2.2. MPLS-TP LSP MEG_IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1.2.3. Pseudowire MEG_IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.2. Maintenance Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.2.1. Maintenance Point_IDs for MPLS-TP LSPs and Tunnels . . 11
7.2.1.1. MPLS-TP Tunnel_MEP_ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.2.1.2. MPLS-TP LSP_MEP_ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.2.1.3. MPLS-TP LSP_MIP_ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.2.2. Maintenance Identifiers for Pseudowires . . . . . . . 12
7.2.2.1. MEP_IDs for PW T-PEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.2.2.2. MP_IDs for Pseudowires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Open issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Bocci & Swallow Expires May 14, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Identifiers November 2009
1. Introduction
This document specifies identifiers to be used in within the
Transport Profile of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS-TP). where
compatibility with existing MPLS control plane conventions are
necessary. The MPLS-TP requirements [13] require that the elements
and objects in an MPLS-TP environment are able to be configured and
managed without a control plane. In such an environment many
conventions for defining identifiers are possible. In particular,
identifiers conformant to existing ITU conventions are defined. It
is also anticipated that operational environments where MPLS-TP
objects, e.g. Label Switched Paths (LSPs) and Pseudowires (PWs) will
be signaled via existing protocols such as the Label Distribution
Protocol (RFC 4447) [1] and the Resource Reservation Protocol as it
is applied to Generalized Multi-protocol Label Switching (RFCs 3471 &
3473) [2][3] (GMPLS). This document defines a set of identifiers for
MPLS-TP which are both compatible with those protocols and applicable
to MPLS-TP management and OAM functions.
1.1. Terminology
AII: Attachment Interface Identifier
ASN: Autonomous System Number
FEC: Forwarding Equivalence Class
GMPLS: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
ICC: ITU Carrier Code
LSP: Label Switched Path
LSR: Label Switching Router
ME: Maintenance Entity
MEG: Maintenance Entity Group
MEP: Maintenance End Point
MIP: Maintenance Intermediate Point
MPLS: Multi-Protocol Label Switching
OAM: Operations, Administration and Maintenance
P2MP: Point to Multi-Point
Bocci & Swallow Expires May 14, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Identifiers November 2009
P2P: Point to Point
PSC: Protection State Coordination
PW: Pseudowire
RSVP: Resource Reservation Protocol
RSVP-TE: RSVP Traffic Engineering
S-PE: Switching Provider Edge
T-PE: Terminating Provider Edge
Requirements Language
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 RFC 2119 [4].
2. Named Entities
In order to configure, operate and manage a transport network based
on the MPLS Transport Profile, a number of entities require
identification. Identifiers for the follow entities are defined in
this document:
o Operator
* ICC
* Global_ID
o LSR
o LSP
o PW
o Interface
o MEG
o MEP
o MIP
Bocci & Swallow Expires May 14, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Identifiers November 2009
o Tunnel
Note that we have borrowed the term tunnel from RSVP-TE (RFC 3209)
[5] where it is used to describe an entity that provides an LSP
connection between a source and destination LSR which in turn is
instantiated by one or more LSPs, where the additional LSPs are used
for protection or re-grooming of the tunnel.
3. Uniquely Identifying an Operator
Two forms of identification are defined, one that is compatible with
IP operational practice called a Global_ID and one compatible with
ITU practice, the ICC. An Operator MAY be identified either by its
Global_ID or by its ICC.
3.1. The Global ID
RFC 5003 [6] defines a globally unique Attachment Interface
Identifier (AII). That AII is composed of three parts, a Global ID
which uniquely identifies a operator, a prefix, and finally and
attachment circuit identifier. We have chosen to use that Global ID
for MPLS-TP. Quoting from RFC 5003, section 3.2, "The global ID can
contain the 2-octet or 4-octet value of the operator's Autonomous
System Number (ASN). It is expected that the global ID will be
derived from the globally unique ASN of the autonomous system hosting
the PEs containing the actual AIIs. The presence of a global ID
based on the operator's ASN ensures that the AII will be globally
unique."
When the Global_ID is derived from a 2-octet AS number, the two high-
order octets of this 4-octet identifier MUST be set to zero.
Note that this Global_ID is used solely to provide a globally unique
context for other MPLS-TP identifiers. It has nothing to do with the
use of the ASN in protocols such as BGP.
3.2. ITU Carrier Code
M.1400 defines the ITU Carrier Code (ICC) assigned to a network
operator/service provider and maintained by the ITU-T
Telecommunication Standardization Bureau (TSB): www.itu.int/ITU-T/
inr/icc/index.html.
ICCs can be assigned both to ITU-T and non-ITU-T members and the
referenced local ICC website may contain ICCs of operators of both
kinds.
Bocci & Swallow Expires May 14, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Identifiers November 2009
The ICC is a string of one to six characters, each character being
either alphabetic (i.e. A-Z) or numeric (i.e. 0-9) characters.
Alphabetic characters in the ICC SHOULD be represented with upper
case letters.
4. Node and Interface Identifiers
An LSR requires identification of the node itself and of its
interfaces. We call the identifier associated with a node a Node
Identifier (Node_ID). Within the context of a particular node, we
call the identifier associated with an interface an Logical Interface
Handle or LIH. The combination of Node_ID::LIH we call an Network
Interface ID or IF_ID.
In existing MPLS deployments Node_IDs are IPv4 addresses. Therefore
we have chosen the Node_ID to be a 32-bit value assigned by the
operator. Where IPv4 addresses are in use the Node_ID can be
automatically mapped to the LSR's /32 IPv4 loopback address. Note
that, when IP reachability is not needed, the 32-bit Node_ID is not
required to have any association with the IPv4 address space used in
the operator's IGP or BGP, other that that they be uniquely chosen
within the scope of that operator.
GMPLS signaling [2] requires interface identification. We have
chosen to adopt the conventions of that RFC. GMPLS allows three
formats for the Interface_ID. For IP numbered links, it is simply
the IPv4 or IPv6 address associated with the interface. The third
format consists of an IPv4 Address plus a 32-bit unsigned integer for
the specific interface.
For MPLS-TP, we have adopted a format consistent with the third
format above. In MPLS-TP, each interface is assigned a 32-bit
identifier which we call a Logical Interface Handle (LIH). The LIH
MUST be unique within the context of the Node_ID. We map the Node_ID
to the field the field which carries the IP address. That is, an
IF_ID is a 64-bit identifier consisting of the Node_ID followed by
the LIH. The LIH in turn is a 32-bit unsigned integer unique to the
node. The LIH value 0 has special meaning (see section
Section 7.2.1.3 and must not be used as the LIH in an MPLS-TP IF_ID.
In situations where a Node_ID or an IF_ID needs to be globally
unique, this is accomplished by prefixing the identifier with the
operator's Global_ID. The combination of Global_ID::Node_ID we call
an Global Node ID or Global_Node_ID. Likewise, the combination of
Global_ID::Node_ID::LIH we call an Global Interface ID or
Global_IF_ID.
Bocci & Swallow Expires May 14, 2010 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Identifiers November 2009
MPLS-TP Tunnels (see section Section 5.1) also need interface
identifiers. A procedure for automatically generating these is
contained in that section.
5. MPLS-TP Tunnel and LSP Identifiers
A important construct within MPLS_TP is a connection which is
provided across a working and a protection LSP. Within this document
we will use the term MPLS-TP Tunnel or simply tunnel for the
connection provided by the working and protect LSPs. This section
defines an MPLS-TP Tunnel_ID to uniquely identify a tunnel and
MPLS-TP LSP_IDs within the context of a tunnel.
5.1. MPLS-TP Tunnel Identifiers
At each endpoint a tunnel is uniquely identified by the Source
Node_ID and a locally assigned tunnel number. Specifically a
Tunnel_Num is a 16-bit unsigned integer unique to the node. The
concatenation of the two endpoint identifier servers as the full
identifier. Thus the format of a Tunnel_ID is:
Src-Node_ID::Src-Tunnel_Num::Dst-Node_ID::Dst-Tunnel_Num
Where the Tunnel_ID needs to be globally unique, this is accomplished
by using globally unique Node_IDs as defined above. Thus a globally
unique Tunnel_ID becomes:
Src-Global_ID::Src-Node_ID::Src-Tunnel_Num:: Dst-Global_ID::Dst-
Node_ID::Dst-Tunnel_Num
When an MPLS-TP Tunnel is configured, it MUST be assigned a unique
IF_ID at both the source and destination endpoints. As usual, the
IF_ID is composed of the local NODE_ID concatenated with a 32-bit
LIH. It is RECOMMENDED that the LIH be auto-generated by adding 2^31
to the local Tunnel_Num.
5.2. MPLS-TP LSP Identifiers
Within the scope of an MPLS-TP Tunnel_ID an LSP can be uniquely
identified by a single LSP number. Specifically an LSP_Num is a 16-
bit unsigned integer unique within the Tunnel_ID. Thus the format of
a Tunnel_ID is:
Src-Node_ID::Src-Tunnel_Num::Dst-Node_ID::Dst-Tunnel_Num:: LSP_Num
Where the LSP_ID needs to be globally unique, this is accomplished by
using globally unique Node_IDs as defined above. Thus a globally
Bocci & Swallow Expires May 14, 2010 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Identifiers November 2009
unique Tunnel_ID becomes:
Src-Global_ID::Src-Node_ID::Src-Tunnel_Num:: Dst-Global_ID::Dst-
Node_ID::Dst-Tunnel_Num::LSP_Num
5.3. Mapping to GMPLS Signalling
This section defines the mapping from an MPLS-TP LSP_ID to GMPLS. At
this time, GMPLS has yet to be extended to accommodate Global_IDs.
Thus a mapping is only made for the network unique form of the
LSP_ID.
GMPLS signaling [3] uses a 5-tuple to uniquely identify an LSP within
a operator's network. This tuple is composed of a Tunnel Endpoint
Address, Tunnel_ID, Extended Tunnel ID, and Tunnel Sender Address and
(GMPLS) LSP_ID.
In situations where a mapping to the GMPLS 5-tuple is required, the
following mapping is used.
o Tunnel Endpoint Address = Dst-Node_ID
o Tunnel_ID = Src-Tunnel_Num
o Extended Tunnel_ID = Src-Node_ID
o Tunnel Sender Address = Src-Node_ID
o LSP_ID = LSP_Num
6. Pseudowire Path Identifiers
Pseudowire signaling (RFC 4447 [1]) defines two FECs used to signal
pseudowires. Of these, FEC Type 129 along with AII Type 2 as defined
in RFC 5003 [6] fits the identification requirements of MPLS-TP.
In an MPLS-TP environment, a PW is identified by a set of identifiers
which can be mapped directly to the elements required by FEC 129 and
AII Type 2. To distinguish this identifier from other Pseudowire
Identifiers, we call this a Pseudowire Path Identifier or PW_Path_Id.
The AII Type 2 is composed of three fields. These are the Global_ID,
the Prefix, and the AC_ID. The Global_ID used in this document is
identical to the Global_ID defined in RFC 5003. The Node_ID is used
as the Prefix. The AC_ID is as defined in RFC 5003.
To complete the FEC 129, all that is required is a Attachment Group
Bocci & Swallow Expires May 14, 2010 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Identifiers November 2009
Identifier (AGI). That field is exactly as specified in RFC 4447.
FEC 129 has a notion of Source AII (SAII) and Target AII (TAII).
These terms are used relative to the direction of the signaling. In
a purely configured environment when referring to the entire PW, this
distinction is not critical. That is a FEC 129 of AGIa::AIIb::AIIc
is equivalent to AGIa::AIIc::AIIb. We note that in a signaled
environment, the required convention in RFC 4447 is that at a
particular endpoint, the AII associated with that endpoint comes
first. The complete PW_Path_Id is:
AGI:Src-Global_ID::Src-Node_ID::Src-AC_ID:: Dst-Global_ID::Dst-
Node_ID::Dst-AC_ID.
7. Maintenance Identifiers
[Note this section needs to reconciled with on going ITU and MPLS WG
discussions on Maintenance Points.]
In MPLS-TP a Maintenance Entity Group (MEG) represents an Entity that
requires management and defines a relationship between a set of
maintenance points. A maintenance point is either Maintenance End-
point (MEP) or a Maintenance Intermediate Point (MIP). A Maintenance
Entity is a relationship between two MEPs. This section defines a
means of uniquely identifying Maintenance Entity Groups, Maintenance
Entities and uniquely defining MEPs and MIPs within the context of a
Maintenance Entity Group.
7.1. Maintenance Entity Group Identifiers
Maintenance Entity Group Identifiers (MEG_IDs) are required for
MPLS-TP Paths and Pseudowires. Two classes of MEG_IDs are defined,
one that follows the IP compatible identifier defined above as well
as the ICC-format.
7.1.1. ICC based MEG_IDs
MEG_ID for MPLS-TP LSPs and Pseudowires MAY use the globally unique
ICC-based format.
In this case, the MEG_ID is a string of up to thirteen characters,
each character being either alphabetic (i.e. A-Z) or numeric (i.e.
0-9) characters. It consists of two subfields: the ICC (as defined
in section 3) followed by a unique MEG code (UMC).
The UMC MUST be unique within the organization identified by the ICC.
The ICC MEG_ID may be applied equally to MPLS-TP tunnels, a single
Bocci & Swallow Expires May 14, 2010 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Identifiers November 2009
MPLS-TP LSP, groups of MPLS-TP LSPs, Pseudowires, and groups of
Pseudowires.
Note that when encoded in a protocol such as in a TLV, a different
type needs to be defined for LSP and PWs as the OAM capabilities may
be different.
7.1.2. IP Compatible MEG_IDs
7.1.2.1. MPLS-TP Tunnel MEG_IDs
Since a MEG pertains to a single MPLS-TP Tunnel, IP compatible
MEG_IDs for MPLS-TP Tunnels are simply the corresponding Tunnel_IDs.
We note that while the two identifiers are syntactically identical,
they have different semantics. This semantic difference needs to be
made clear. For instance if both a MPLS-TP Tunnel_ID and MPLS-TP
Tunnel MEG_IDs are to be encoded in TLVs different types need to be
assigned for these two identifiers.
7.1.2.2. MPLS-TP LSP MEG_IDs
MEG_IDs for MPLS-TP LSPs may pertain to one or more LSPs. Therefore
the direct mapping used for tunnels is not possible. However an
indirect mapping which keeps the formats aligned is possible. This
is done by replacing the LSP_Num with a LSP_MEG_Num. Thus the format
of a MPLS-TP LSP MEG_ID is:
Src-Global_ID::Src-Node_ID::Src-Tunnel_Num:: Dst-Global_ID::Dst-
Node_ID::Dst-Tunnel_Num::LSP_MEG_Num
When a MEG_ID is assigned to a single MPLS-TP LSP it is RECOMMENDED
that the LSP_MEG_Num be assigned equal to the LSP_Num. When a MEG_ID
is assigned to a group of MPLS-TP LSPs within a single MPLS-TP
Tunnel, it is recommended that the MEG_ID be assigned equal to the
LSP_Num of one member of the group of MPLS-TP LSPs. In this
situation if the chosen LSP is later deconfigured it is RECOMMENDED
that this LSP_Num not be reused unless the new LSP in question will
become a member of the same MEG.
7.1.2.3. Pseudowire MEG_IDs
For Pseudowires a MEG pertains to a single PW. The IP compatible
MEG_ID for a PW is simply the corresponding PW_Path_ID. We note that
while the two identifiers are syntactically identical, they have
different semantics. This semantic difference needs to be made
clear. For instance if both a PW_Path_ID and a PW_MEG_ID is to be
encoded in TLVs different types need to be assigned for these two
identifiers.
Bocci & Swallow Expires May 14, 2010 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Identifiers November 2009
7.2. Maintenance Points
Maintenance points are uniquely associated with a MEG. Within the
context of a MEG, MEPs and MIPs must be uniquely identified. This
section describes how MIPs and MEPs are identified.
Note that depending on the requirements of a particular OAM
interaction, the MPLS-TP maintenance entity context may be provided
either explicitly using the MEG_IDs described above or implicitly by
the label of the received OAM message.
7.2.1. Maintenance Point_IDs for MPLS-TP LSPs and Tunnels
In order to automatically generate MEP_IDs for MPLS-TP Tunnels and
LSPs, we use the elements of identification that are unique to an
endpoint. This ensures that MEP_IDs are unique for all Tunnels and
LSPs within a operator. When Tunnels or LSPs cross operator
boundaries, these are made unique by pre-pending them with the
operator's Global_ID.
7.2.1.1. MPLS-TP Tunnel_MEP_ID
A MPLS-TP Tunnel_MEP_ID is:
Src-Node_ID::Src-Tunnel_Num
In situations where global uniqueness is required this becomes:
Src-Global_ID::Src-Node_ID::Src-Tunnel_Num
7.2.1.2. MPLS-TP LSP_MEP_ID
A MPLS-TP LSP_MEP_ID is:
Src-Node_ID::Src-Tunnel_Num::LSP_Num
In situations where global uniqueness is required this becomes:
Src-Global_ID::Src-Node_ID::Src-Tunnel_Num::LSP_Num
7.2.1.3. MPLS-TP LSP_MIP_ID
At a cross connect point, in order to automatically generate MIP_IDs
for MPLS-TP LSPs, we simply use the IF_IDs of the two interfaces
which are cross connected via the label bindings of the MPLS-TP LSP.
If only one MIP is configured, then the MIP_ID is formed using the
Node_ID and an LIH of 0.
Bocci & Swallow Expires May 14, 2010 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Identifiers November 2009
7.2.2. Maintenance Identifiers for Pseudowires
Like MPLS-TP LSPs, Pseudowire endpoints (T-PEs) require MEP-IDs.
Pseudowire S-PEs, however, are a special case. Here the Maintenance
Entity takes on some of the functionality of both a MIP and a MEP.
Provisionally we are calling these a Maintenance Point or MP.
7.2.2.1. MEP_IDs for PW T-PEs
In order to automatically generate MEP_IDs for PWs, we simply use the
AGI plus the AII associated with that end of the PW. Thus a MEP_ID
for an Pseudowire T-PE takes the form:
AGI:Src-Global_ID::Src-Node_ID::Src-AC_ID
7.2.2.2. MP_IDs for Pseudowires
The MP_ID is formed by a combination of a PW MEP_ID and the
identification of the local node. At an S-PE, there are two PW
segments. We distinguish the segments by using the MEP-ID which is
upstream of the PW segment in question. To complete the
identification we suffix this with the identification of the local
node.
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
| | | | | | | |
| A|---------|B C|---------|D E|---------|F |
| | | | | | | |
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
T-PE1 S-PE2 S-PE3 T-PE4
Pseudowire Maintenance Points
For example, suppose that in the above figure all of the nodes have
Global_ID GID1; the node are represented as named in the figure; and
The identification for the Pseudowire is:
AGI = AGI1
Src-Global_ID = GID1
Src-Node_ID = T-PE1
Src-AC_ID = AII1
Dst-Global_ID = GID1
Dst-Node_ID = T-PE1
Dst-AC_ID = AII4
The MEP_ID at point A would be AGI1::GID1:T-PE1::AII1. The MP_ID at
Bocci & Swallow Expires May 14, 2010 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Identifiers November 2009
point C would be AGI1::GID1:T-PE1::AII1::GID1:S-PE2.
For interaction where the T-PE is acting as the segment endpoint, it
too may use the MP_ID.
8. Open issues
1. We have two means of identifying operators. Should either be
allowed in all cases or can we constrain this. I.e. when there
are both IP compatible and ITU compatible IDs for an Object can
we constrain the operator ID to the corresponding format?
Clearly when only one identifier is defined the both must be
allowed.
2. Details on MEP and MIP identifiers are subject to ongoing
discussions. Further based on some discussion in Stockholm, ITU
style identifiers for MEPs and MIPs were removed from this
version. However, consensus for this needs to be verified.
3. Pseudowire Maintenance Points need to be kept aligned with the
model for Pseudowire maintenance.
4. Identifiers for P2MP entities
5. Tandem connection Identification - the identification should be
exactly the same as any other MPLS-TP LSP. However, in the ACH
TLV draft we could have a different TLV with the same format as
an MPLS-TP LSP, if there are places where the distinction becomes
important.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[1] Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., Smith, T., and G. Heron,
"Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label Distribution
Protocol (LDP)", RFC 4447, April 2006.
[2] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, January 2003.
[3] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
[4] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Bocci & Swallow Expires May 14, 2010 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Identifiers November 2009
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[5] 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.
[6] Metz, C., Martini, L., Balus, F., and J. Sugimoto, "Attachment
Individual Identifier (AII) Types for Aggregation", RFC 5003,
September 2007.
[7] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., and A. Kullberg, "Signalling
Unnumbered Links in CR-LDP (Constraint-Routing Label
Distribution Protocol)", RFC 3480, February 2003.
[8] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., and L. Berger, "Link Bundling in
MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4201, October 2005.
[9] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol Label
Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379, February 2006.
[10] Lang, J., Rekhter, Y., and D. Papadimitriou, "RSVP-TE
Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery", RFC 4872, May 2007.
[11] Aggarwal, R., Kompella, K., Nadeau, T., and G. Swallow, "BFD
For MPLS LSPs", draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-07 (work in progress),
June 2008.
[12] Nadeau, T. and C. Pignataro, "Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection (BFD) for the Pseudowire Virtual Circuit Connectivity
Verification (VCCV)", draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-bfd-07 (work in
progress), July 2009.
9.2. Informative References
[13] Vigoureux, M., Ward, D., and M. Betts, "Requirements for OAM in
MPLS Transport Networks",
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-requirements-03 (work in progress),
August 2009.
[14] Ohta, H., "Assignment of the 'OAM Alert Label' for
Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS) Operation and
Maintenance (OAM) Functions", RFC 3429, November 2002.
[15] Niven-Jenkins, B., Brungard, D., Betts, M., Sprecher, N., and
S. Ueno, "MPLS-TP Requirements",
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-requirements-10 (work in progress),
August 2009.
Bocci & Swallow Expires May 14, 2010 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft MPLS-TP Identifiers November 2009
[16] Bocci, M., Bryant, S., Frost, D., and L. Levrau, "A Framework
for MPLS in Transport Networks",
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-06 (work in progress),
October 2009.
Authors' Addresses
Matthew Bocci
Alcatel-Lucent
Voyager Place, Shoppenhangers Road
Maidenhead, Berks SL6 2PJ
UK
Email: matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com
George Swallow
Cisco
Email: swallow@cisco.com
Bocci & Swallow Expires May 14, 2010 [Page 15]
