Network Working Group Luca Martini (Editor)
Internet Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expiration Date: October 2005 Claude Kawa (Editor)
Andrew Malis (Editor) Oz Communications
Tellabs
April 2005
Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Frame Relay Over MPLS Networks
draft-ietf-pwe3-frame-relay-05.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
or will be disclosed, and any of which I become aware will be
disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668.
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.
Abstract
A frame relay pseudo-wire is a mechanism that exists between a
provider's edge network nodes and support as faithfully as possible
frame relay services over MPLS packet switched network (PSN). This
document describes the detailed encapsulation necessary to transport
frame-relay packets over an MPLS network.
Martini, et al. [Page 1]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-frame-relay-05.txt April 2005
Table of Contents
1 Specification of Requirements .......................... 2
2 Co-authors ............................................. 3
3 Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................. 3
4 Introduction ........................................... 4
5 General encapsulation method ........................... 5
6 Frame Relay over MPLS PSN for the One-to-One Mode ...... 6
6.1 MPLS PSN Tunnel and PW ................................. 6
6.2 Packet Format over MPLS PSN ............................ 7
6.3 The Control Word ....................................... 8
6.4 The Martini Legacy Mode Control Word ................... 9
6.5 PW packet processing ................................... 9
6.5.1 Generation of PW packets ............................... 9
6.5.2 Setting the sequence number ............................ 10
6.6 Reception of PW packets ................................ 11
6.6.1 Processing the sequence number ......................... 11
6.6.2 Processing of the Length Field by the Receiver ......... 12
6.7 MPLS Shim EXP Bit Values ............................... 13
6.8 MPLS Shim S Bit Value .................................. 13
6.9 Control Plane Details for Frame Relay Service .......... 13
6.9.1 Frame-Relay Specific Interface Parameters .............. 13
7 Frame Relay Port Mode .................................. 14
8 IANA Considerations .................................... 14
9 Security Considerations ................................ 14
10 Full Copyright Statement ............................... 14
11 Intellectual Property Statement ........................ 15
12 Normative References ................................... 15
13 Informative References ................................. 16
14 Author Information ..................................... 17
15 Contributing Author Information ........................ 18
1. Specification of Requirements
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 Below are the
definitions for the terms used throughout the document. PWE3
definitions can be found in [PWE3REQ, RFC3985]. This section defines
terms specific to frame relay.
Martini, et al. [Page 2]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-frame-relay-05.txt April 2005
- Backward direction.
In frame relay it is the direction opposite to the direction
taken by a frame being forwarded (see also forward direction).
- Forward direction.
The forward direction is the direction taken by the frame being
forwarded.
2. Co-authors
The following are co-authors of this document:
Nasser El-Aawar Level 3 Communications, LLC
Eric C. Rosen Cisco Systems
Daniel Tappan Cisco Systems
Thomas K. Johnson Litchfield Communications
Kireeti Kompella Juniper Networks, Inc.
Steve Vogelsang Laurel Networks, Inc.
Vinai Sirkay Reliance Infocomm
Ravi Bhat Nokia
Nishit Vasavada Nokia
Giles Heron Tellabs
Dimitri Stratton Vlachos Mazu Networks,Inc.
Chris Liljenstolpe Cable & Wireless
Prayson Pate Overture Networks, Inc
3. Acronyms and Abbreviations
Bc Committed burst size
Be Excess burst size
BECN Backward Explicit Congestion Notification
CE Customer Edge
CIR Committed Information Rate
C/R Command/Response
DE Discard Eligibility
DLCI Data Link Connection identifier
FCS Frame Check Sequence
FECN Forward Explicit Congestion Notification
FR Frame Relay
L2TP Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol
FRS Frame Relay Service
LSP Label Switched Path
LSR Label Switching Router
Martini, et al. [Page 3]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-frame-relay-05.txt April 2005
MPLS Multiprotocol Label Switching
MTU Maximum Transfer Unit
NNI Network-Network Interface
PE Provider Edge
PSN Packet Switched Network
PW Pseudo-Wire
PWE3 Pseudo-Wire Emulation Edge to Edge
POS Packet over SONET/SDH
PVC Permanent Virtual Circuit
QoS Quality of Service
SLA Service Level Agreement
SPVC Switched/Soft permanent virtual circuit
SVC Switched Virtual Circuit
UNI User-Network Interface
VC Virtual Circuit
4. Introduction
In an MPLS or IP network, it is possible to use control protocols
such as those specified in [CONTROL] to set up "Pseudo Wires" that
carry the the Protocol Data Units of layer 2 protocols across the
network. A number of these emulated Pseudo Wires (PW) may be carried
in a single tunnel. The main functions required to support frame
relay PW by a PE include:
- Encapsulation of frame relay specific information in a suitable
pseudo wire (PW) packet,
- Transfer of a PW packet across an MPLS network for delivery to a
peer PE.
- Extraction of frame relay specific information from a PW packet
by the remote peer PE,
- Regeneration of native frame relay frames for forwarding across
an egress port of the remote peer PE,
- Execution of any other operations as required to support frame
relay service.
This document specifies the encapsulation for the emulated frame
relay VC over an MPLS PSN. Although different layer 2 protocols
require different information to be carried in this encapsulation, an
attempt has been made to make the encapsulation as common as possible
for all layer 2 protocols. Other layer 2 protocols are described in
separate documents. [ATM] [ETH] [PPP]
The following two figures describe the reference models which are
derived from [RFC3985] to support the frame relay PW emulated
services.
Martini, et al. [Page 4]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-frame-relay-05.txt April 2005
|<-------------- Emulated Service ---------------->|
| |
| |<------- Pseudo Wire ------>| |
| | | |
| | |<-- PSN Tunnel -->| | |
| PW End V V V V PW End |
V Service +----+ +----+ Service V
+-----+ | | PE1|==================| PE2| | +-----+
| |----------|............PW1.............|----------| |
| CE1 | | | | | | | | CE2 |
| |----------|............PW2.............|----------| |
+-----+ ^ | | |==================| | | ^ +-----+
^ | +----+ +----+ | | ^
| | Provider Edge 1 Provider Edge 2 | |
| | (PE1) (PE2) | |
Customer | | Customer
Edge 1 | | Edge 2
| |
| |
Attachment Circuit (AC) Attachment Circuit (AC)
native frame relay service native frame relay service
Figure 1: PWE3 frame relay PVC Interface Reference Configuration
Two mapping modes can be defined between frame relay VCs and pseudo
wires: The first one is called "one-to-one" mapping, because there
is a one-to-one correspondence between a frame-relay VC and one
Pseudo Wire. The second mapping is called "many-to-one" mapping or
"port mode" Because multiple frame-relay VCs assigned to a port are
mapped to one pseudo wire. The "port mode" encapsulation is identical
to HDLC pseudo wire encapsulation which is described in [PPP].
5. General encapsulation method
The general frame relay pseudo wire packet format for carrying frame
relay information (user's payload and frame relay control
information) between two PEs is shown in Figure 2.
Martini, et al. [Page 5]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-frame-relay-05.txt April 2005
+-------------------------------+
| |
| MPLS Transport header |
| (As required) |
+-------------------------------+
| Pseudo Wire (PW) Header |
+-------------------------------+
| Control Word |
+-------------------------------+
| FR Service |
| Payload |
+-------------------------------+
Figure 2 - General format of frame relay encapsulation over PSN
The PW packet consists of the following fields: Control word, and
Payload preceded by the MPLS Transport and pseudo wire header. The
meaning of the different fields is as follows:
-i. MPLS Transport header is specific to the MPLS network. This
header is used to switch the PW packet through the MPLS
core.
-ii. PW header contains an identifier for multiplexing PWs within
an MPLS tunnel.
-iii. Control Word contains protocol control information for
providing a frame relay service. Its structure is provided
in the following sections.
-iv. The contents of the frame relay service payload field
depends on the mapping mode. In general it contains the
layer 2 frame relay frame.
6. Frame Relay over MPLS PSN for the One-to-One Mode
6.1. MPLS PSN Tunnel and PW
MPLS label switched paths (LSPs) called "MPLS Tunnels" are used
between PEs and within the MPLS core network for forwarding purposes
of PW packets. A MPLS tunnel corresponds to "PSN Tunnel" of Figure 1.
Several "Pseudo-Wires" may be nested inside one MPLS tunnel. Each PW
carries the traffic of a single frame relay VC.
Martini, et al. [Page 6]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-frame-relay-05.txt April 2005
6.2. Packet Format over MPLS PSN
For the one-to-one mapping mode for frame relay over an MPLS network,
the PW packet format is shown in Figure 3.
+-------------------------------+
| MPLS Tunnel label(s) | n*4 octets (four octets per label)
+-------------------------------+
| PW label | 4 octets
+-------------------------------+
| Control Word |
| (See Figure 5) | 4 octets
+-------------------------------+
| Payload |
| (Frame relay frame |
| information field) | n octets
| |
+-------------------------------+
Figure 3 - frame relay Over MPLS PSN Packet for the One-to-One
Mapping
The meaning of the different fields is as follows:
- MPLS Tunnel label(s)
The MPLS Tunnel label(s) corresponds to the PSN transport header
of Figure 3. The label(s) is/are used by MPLS LSRs to forward a
PW packet from one PE to the other.
- PW Label
The PW label identifies one PW (i.e. one LSP) assigned to a frame
relay VC in one direction. It corresponds to the PW header of
Figure 3. Together the MPLS Tunnel label(s) and PW label form an
MPLS label stack [RFC3032].
- Control Word
The Control Word contains protocol control information. Its
structure is shown in Figure 4.
- Payload
The payload field corresponds to X.36/X.76 frame relay frame
information field with bit/byte stuffing, frame relay header
removed, and FCS removed . It is RECOMMENDED to support a frame
Martini, et al. [Page 7]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-frame-relay-05.txt April 2005
size of at least 1600 bytes. The maximum length of the payload
field MUST be agreed upon by the two PEs. This can be achieved by
using the MTU interface parameter when the PW is established.
[CONTROL]
6.3. The Control Word
When carrying frame relay over an MPLS network, sequentiality may
need to be preserved. The REQUIRED control word defined here
addresses this requirement.
The Control Word contains protocol control information. Its structure
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 0|F|B|D|C|Res| Length | Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4 - Control Word structure for the one-to-one mapping mode
The meaning of the Control Word fields (Figure 5) is as follows (see
also [X36 and X76] for frame relay bits):
- bits 0 to 3
In the above diagram the first 4 bits MUST be set to 0 to
indicate PW data.
- F (bit 4) FR FECN (Forward Explicit Congestion Notification) bit.
- B (bit 5) FR BECN (Backward Explicit Congestion Notification)
bit.
- D (bit 6) FR DE bit (Discard Eligibility) bit.
- C (bit 7) FR frame C/R (Command/Response) bit.
- Res (bits 8 and 9): These bits are reserved and MUST be set to
0 upon transmission and ignored upon reception.
- Length (bits 10 to 15)
If the Pseudo Wire traverses a network link that requires a
minimum frame size (a notable example is Ethernet), padding is
Martini, et al. [Page 8]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-frame-relay-05.txt April 2005
required to reach its minimum frame size. If the frame's length
(defined as the length of the layer 2 payload plus the length of
the control word) is less than 64 octets, the length field MUST
be set to the PW payload length. Otherwise the length field MUST
be set to zero. The value of the length field, if non-zero, is
used to remove the padding characters by the egress PE.
- Sequence number (Bit 16 to 31)
Sequence numbers provide one possible mechanism to ensure the
ordered delivery of PW packets. The processing of the sequence
number field is OPTIONAL. The sequence number space is a 16 bit,
unsigned circular space. The sequence number value 0 is used to
indicate that the sequence number check algorithm is not used.
6.4. The Martini Legacy Mode Control Word
For backward compatibility to existing implementations the following
version of the control word is defined as the "martini mode CW" for
frame relay.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 0|B|F|D|C|Res| Length | Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Note that the "B" and "F" bits are reversed.
This control word format is used for PW type "Frame Relay DLCI (
Martini Mode )"
6.5. PW packet processing
6.5.1. Generation of PW packets
The generation process of a PW packet is initiated when a PE receives
a frame relay frame from one of its frame relay UNI or NNI
interfaces. The PE generates the following fields of the Control word
from the corresponding fields of the frame relay frame as follows:
- Command/Response (C/R or C) bit: The C bit is copied unchanged in
the PW Control Word.
Martini, et al. [Page 9]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-frame-relay-05.txt April 2005
- The DE bit of the frame relay frame is copied into the D bit
field. However if the D bit is not already set, it MAY be set as
a result of ingress frame policing. If not already set by the
copy operation, setting of this bit by a PE is OPTIONAL. The PE
MUST NOT clear this bit (set it to 0 if it was received with the
value of 1).
- The FECN bit of the frame relay frame is copied into the F bit
field. However if the F bit is not already set, it MAY be set to
reflect a congestion situation detected by the PE. If not already
set by the copy operation, setting of this bit by a PE is
OPTIONAL. The PE MUST NOT clear this bit (set it to 0 if it was
received with the value of 1).
- The BECN bit of the frame relay frame is copied into the B bit
field. However if the B bit is not already set, it MAY be set to
reflect a congestion situation detected by the PE. If not already
set by the copy operation, setting of this bit by a PE is
OPTIONAL. The PE MUST NOT clear this bit (set it to 0 if it was
received with the value of 1).
- If the PW packet length (defined as the length of the payload
plus the length of the control word) is less than 64 octets, the
length field MUST be set to the packet's length. Otherwise the
length field MUST be set to zero.
- The sequence number field is processed if the PW uses sequence
numbers.
- The payload of the PW packet is the contents of ITU-T
Recommendations X.36/X.76 [X36, X76] frame relay frame
information field stripped from any bit or byte stuffing.
6.5.2. Setting the sequence number
For a given PW, and a pair of routers PE1 and PE2, if PE1 supports
packet sequencing then the following procedures should be used:
- the initial packet transmitted on the PW MUST use sequence number
1
- subsequent packets MUST increment the sequence number by one for
each packet
- when the transmit sequence number reaches the maximum 16 bit
value (65535) the sequence number MUST wrap to 1
If the transmitting router PE1 does not support sequence number
processing, then the sequence number field in the control word MUST
be set to 0.
Martini, et al. [Page 10]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-frame-relay-05.txt April 2005
6.6. Reception of PW packets
When a PE receives a PW packet, it processes the different fields of
the control word in order to generate a new frame relay frame for
transmission to a CE on a frame relay UNI or NNI. The PE performs the
following actions (not necessarily in the order shown):
- It generates the following frame relay frame header fields from
the corresponding fields of the PW packet.
- The C/R bit is copied in the frame relay header.
- The D bit is copied into the frame relay header DE bit.
- The F bit is copied into the frame relay header FECN bit. If the
F bit is set to zero, the FECN bit may be set to one, depending
on the congestion state of the PE device in the forward
direction. Changing the state of this bit by a PE is OPTIONAL.
- The B bit is copied into the frame relay header BECN bit. If the
B bit is set to zero, the BECN bit may be set to one, depending
on the congestion state of the PE device in the backward
direction. Changing the state of this bit by a PE is OPTIONAL.
- It processes the length and sequence field, the details of which
are in the subsequent sub-sections.
- It generates the frame relay information field from the contents
of the PW packet payload after removing any padding.
Once the above fields of a FR frame have been generated, the FCS has
to be computed, HDLC flags have to be added and any bit or byte
stuffing has been performed (these final actions typically take place
in a hardware framer). The FR frame is queued for transmission on
the selected frame relay UNI or NNI interface.
6.6.1. Processing the sequence number
If a router PE2 supports receive sequence number processing, then the
following procedures should be used:
When a PW is initially set up, the "expected sequence number"
associated with it MUST be initialized to 1.
When a packet is received on that PW, the sequence number should be
processed as follows:
- if the sequence number on the packet is 0, then the sequence
number check is skipped. ( sequence check disabled )
Martini, et al. [Page 11]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-frame-relay-05.txt April 2005
- otherwise if the packet sequence number >= the expected sequence
number and the packet sequence number - the expected sequence
number < 32768, then the packet is in order.
- otherwise if the packet sequence number < the expected sequence
number and the expected sequence number - the packet sequence
number >= 32768, then the packet is in order.
- otherwise the packet is out of order.
If a packet passes the sequence number check, or is in order then, it
can be delivered immediately. If the packet is in order, then the
expected sequence number should be set using the algorithm:
expected_sequence_number := packet_sequence_number + 1 mod 2**16
if (expected_sequence_number = 0) then expected_sequence_number := 1;
Packets which are received out of order MAY be dropped or reordered
at the discretion of the receiver.
If a PE router negotiated not to use receive sequence number
processing, and it received a non zero sequence number, then it
SHOULD send a PW status message indicating a receive fault, and
disable the PW.
If an egress PE receives an excessive number of out-of-sequence PW
packets, it SHOULD inform the management plane responsible for PW
setup/maintenance, and take the appropriate actions. The threshold
for declaring that out-of-sequence PW packets are excessive is not
defined in this document.
6.6.2. Processing of the Length Field by the Receiver
Any padding octet, if present, in the payload field of a PW packet
received MUST be removed before forwarding the data.
- If the Length field is set to zero then there are no padding
octets following the payload field.
- Else if the payload is longer then the length specified in the
control word padding characters are removed based on the length
field.
Martini, et al. [Page 12]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-frame-relay-05.txt April 2005
6.7. MPLS Shim EXP Bit Values
If it is desired to carry Quality of Service information, the Quality
of Service information SHOULD be represented in the EXP field of the
PW MPLS label. If more than one MPLS label is imposed by the ingress
LSR, the EXP field of any labels higher in the stack SHOULD also
carry the same value.
6.8. MPLS Shim S Bit Value
The ingress LSR, PE1, MUST set the S bit of the PW label to a value
of 1 to denote that the PW label is at the bottom of the stack.
6.9. Control Plane Details for Frame Relay Service
When emulating a frame relay service, the frame relay PDUs are
encapsulated according to the procedures defined herein. The PE MUST
provide frame relay PVC status signaling to the frame relay network.
If the PE detects a service-affecting condition for a particular
DLCI, as defined in [ITUQ] Q.933 Annex A.5 sited in IA FRF1.1, the PE
MUST communicate to the remote PE the status of the PW that
corresponds to the frame relay DLCI status. The Egress PE SHOULD
generate the corresponding errors and alarms as defined in [ITUQ] on
the egress Frame relay PVC. There are two frame relay flags to
control word bit mappings described below. The legacy bit ordering
scheme will be used for a PW of type 0x0001 "Frame Relay DLCI
(Martini Mode)", while the new bit ordering scheme will be used for a
PW of type 0x0019 "Frame Relay DLCI". The IANA allocation registry of
"Pseudowire Type" is defined in [IANA] along with initial allocated
values.
6.9.1. Frame-Relay Specific Interface Parameters
A separate document [CONTROL], describes the PW control, and
maintenance protocol in detail including generic interface
parameters. The interface parameter information, when applicable, it
MUST be used to validate that the PEs, and the ingress and egress
ports at the edges of the circuit, have the necessary capabilities to
interoperate with each other. The Interface parameter TLV is defined
in [CONTROL], the IANA registry with initial values for interface
parameter types is defined in [IANA], but the frame relay specific
interface parameters are specified as follows:
Martini, et al. [Page 13]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-frame-relay-05.txt April 2005
- 0x08 Frame-Relay DLCI Length.
An optional 16 bit value indicating the length of the frame relay
DLCI field. This OPTIONAL interface parameter can have value of 2
, or 4, with the default being equal to 2. If this interface
parameter is not present the default value of 2 is assumed.
7. Frame Relay Port Mode
Frame relay port mode PW shares the same encapsulation as the HDLC
PW, and is described in the respective document. [PPP]
8. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA Actions.
9. Security Considerations
PWE3 provides no means of protecting the contents or delivery of the
PW packets on behalf of the native service. PWE3 may, however,
leverage security mechanisms provided by the MPLS Tunnel Layer. A
more detailed discussion of PW security is give in [RFC3985, CONTROL,
PWE3REQ].
10. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). 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 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.
Martini, et al. [Page 14]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-frame-relay-05.txt April 2005
11. Intellectual Property Statement
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.
By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
or will be disclosed, and any of which I become aware will be
disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668.
12. Normative References
[CONTROL] Luca Martini, et al., "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance
using LDP", draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-16.txt,
March 2005, work in progress.
[ITUG] ITU Recommendation G.707, "Network Node Interface For The
Synchronous Digital Hierarchy", 1996.
[RFC3032] E. Rosen, et al., RFC 3032, MPLS Label Stack encoding,
January 2001.
[RFC3031] E. Rosen, et al., RFC 3031, MPLS Architecture, January
2001.
[IANA] "IANA Allocations for pseudo Wire Edge to Edge Emulation
Martini, et al. [Page 15]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-frame-relay-05.txt April 2005
(PWE3)" Martini,Townsley, draft-ietf-pwe3-iana-allocation-09.txt
(work in progress), April 2004
[PPP] "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of PPP/HDLC Over MPLS
Networks", draft-ietf-pwe3-hdlc-ppp-encap-05.txt April 2005
13. Informative References
[RFC3985] Stewart Bryant, et al.,Internet draft, PWE3 Architecture,
RFC3985
[FRAG] Andrew G. Malis, et al., PWE3 Fragmentation and
Reassembly, draft-ietf-pwe3-fragmentation-08.txt,
February 2005, ( work in progress ).
[ATM] "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of ATM Over MPLS
Networks", draft-ietf-pwe3-atm-encap-05.txt April 2005
(work in progress)
[ETH] "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Ethernet Over
MPLS Networks", draft-ietf-pwe3-ethernet-encap-06.txt.
February 2005 (work in progress)
[I233] ITU-T Recommendation I.233.1, ISDN frame relay bearer
service, Geneva, October 1991.
[FRF1] FRF.1.2, Frame relay PVC UNI Implementation Agreement,
Frame Relay Forum, April 2000.
[FRF2] FRF.2.2, Frame relay PVC UNI Implementation Agreement,
Frame Relay Forum, April 2002
[FRF4] FRF.4.1, Frame relay SVC UNI Implementation Agreement,
Frame Relay Forum, January 2000.
[FRF10] FRF.10.1, Frame relay SVC NNI Implementation Agreement,
Frame Relay Forum, January 2000.
[FRF13] FRF.13, Service Level Definition Implementation
Agreement, Frame Relay Forum, August 1998.
[FRF14] FRF.14, Physical layer Implementation Agreement, Frame
Relay Forum, December 1998.
[FRAG] Andrew G. Malis, et al., PWE3 Fragmentation and
Reassembly, draft-ietf-pwe3-fragmentation-04.txt,
October 2003, (work in progress)
Martini, et al. [Page 16]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-frame-relay-05.txt April 2005
[PWE3REQ] XiPeng Xiao, et al., RFC 3916.
[X36] ITU-T Recommendation X.36, Interface between a DTE and
DCE for public data networks providing frame relay,
Geneva, 2000.
[X76] ITU-T Recommendation X.76, Network-to-network interface
between public data networks providing frame relay
services, Geneva,2000.
[ITUQ] ITU-T Recommendation Q.933, and Q.922 Specification for
Frame Mode Basic call control, ITU Geneva 1995
14. Author Information
Luca Martini
Cisco Systems, Inc.
9155 East Nichols Avenue, Suite 400
Englewood, CO, 80112
e-mail: lmartini@cisco.com
Claude Kawa
OZ Communications
Windsor Station
1100, de la Gauchetie`re St West
Montreal QC Canada
H3B 2S2
e-mail: claude.kawa@oz.com
Andrew G. Malis
Tellabs
90 Rio Robles Dr.
San Jose, CA 95134
e-mail: Andy.Malis@tellabs.com
Martini, et al. [Page 17]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-frame-relay-05.txt April 2005
15. Contributing Author Information
Kireeti Kompella
Juniper Networks
1194 N. Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
e-mail: kireeti@juniper.net
Giles Heron
Tellabs
Abbey Place
24-28 Easton Street
High Wycombe
Bucks
HP11 1NT
UK
e-mail: giles.heron@tellabs.com
Rao Cherukuri
Juniper Networks
1194 N. Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Dimitri Stratton Vlachos
Mazu Networks, Inc.
125 Cambridgepark Drive
Cambridge, MA 02140
e-mail: d@mazunetworks.com
Chris Liljenstolpe
Cable & Wireless
11700 Plaza America Drive
Reston, VA 20190
e-mail: chris@cw.net
Nasser El-Aawar
Level 3 Communications, LLC.
1025 Eldorado Blvd.
Broomfield, CO, 80021
e-mail: nna@level3.net
Martini, et al. [Page 18]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-frame-relay-05.txt April 2005
Eric C. Rosen
Cisco Systems, Inc.
1414 Massachusetts Avenue
Boxborough, MA 01719
e-mail: erosen@cisco.com
Dan Tappan
Cisco Systems, Inc.
1414 Massachusetts Avenue
Boxborough, MA 01719
e-mail: tappan@cisco.com
Prayson Pate
Overture Networks, Inc.
507 Airport Boulevard
Morrisville, NC, USA 27560
e-mail: prayson.pate@overturenetworks.com
David Sinicrope
Ericsson IPI
e-mail: david.sinicrope@ericsson.com
Ravi Bhat
Nokia
e-mail: ravi.bhat@nokia.com
Nishit Vasavada
Nokia
e-mail: nishit.vasavada@nokia.com
Steve Vogelsang
Laurel Networks, Inc.
Omega Corporate Center
1300 Omega Drive
Pittsburgh, PA 15205
e-mail: sjv@laurelnetworks.com
Martini, et al. [Page 19]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-pwe3-frame-relay-05.txt April 2005
Vinai Sirkay
Redback Networks
300 Holger Way,
San Jose, CA 95134
e-mail: sirkay@technologist.com
Martini, et al. [Page 20]