INTERNET-DRAFT Nov. 11, 2007
IETF INTERNET-DRAFT T. Otani
Intended status: Informational M. Miyazawa
Expires:May 16, 2008 KDDI R&D Labs
Nov. 11, 2007
GMPLS MIB family update
Document: draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-mib-update-00.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Abstract
This memo describes the necessity of generalized multi-protocol label
switching (GMPLS) management information base (MIB) family update.
Since the establishment of basic GMPLS protocol specifications,
additional functionalities has been proposed and standardized so far,
such as recovery, call support, optical transport network (OTN)
support and so forth. Coinciding with these additional specifications,
GMPLS MIB family is also desired to be updated to manage GMPLS
networks appropriately. This document is to clarify missing pieces in
currently defined GMPLS MIB family due to the enhancement of original
GMPLS protocols.
Table of Contents
Status of this Memo................................................ 1
Abstract........................................................... 1
1. Introduction.................................................... 3
2. Conventions used in this document............................... 3
T. Otani et al. Informational - Expires May 16, 2008 1
INTERNET-DRAFT Nov. 11, 2007
3. GMPLS MIB family................................................ 3
4. GMPLS protocol updates.......................................... 3
5. Missing pieces of GMPLS MIB Family.............................. 4
6. Security consideration.......................................... 4
7. IANA Considerations............................................. 4
8. Acknowledgement................................................. 5
9. Intellectual property considerations............................ 5
10. References..................................................... 5
11. Author's Addresses............................................. 6
Document expiration................................................ 7
Copyright statement................................................ 7
T. Otani et al. Informational - Expires May 16, 2008 2
INTERNET-DRAFT Nov. 11, 2007
1. Introduction
With standardizing basic GMPLS protocols, ccamp WG has also defined
related GMPLS MIBs to manage label switched routers (LSRs), label
switched paths (LSPs) and TE links. However, as the time being,
additional functionalities have been proposed and standardized so far,
such as recovery, call support, OTN support and so forth. Coinciding
with these specifications, GMPLS MIB family is desired to be updated
to manage GMPLS networks appropriately. This document is to clarify
missing pieces in currently defined GMPLS MIB family due to the
enhancement of GMPLS protocols and to propose to start the update
work of GMPLS MIB family.
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 RFC-2119 [RFC2119].
3. GMPLS MIB family
CCAMP WG created series of GMPLS MIB specification so far to manage
label switched routers (LSRs), label switched paths (LSPs) and
traffic engineering (TE) links, accompanying with MPLS MIBs created
in MPLS WG, summarized as follows,
(1) GMPLS TC MIB: [RFC4801]
(2) LSRs (Nodes)
- GMPLS LSR MIB: [RFC4803]
(MPLS LSR MIB: [RFC3813])
(3) LSPs (Paths)
- GMPLS TE MIB: [RFC4802]
(MPLS TE MIB: [RFC3812])
(4) TE Links (Links)
- LMP MIB: [RFC4631]
(TE link MIB: [RFC4220])
CCAMP WG is also working for the MIB specification to manage TE
database information.
(5) TE database (routing)
- TEDB MIB: [GMPLS-TED-MIB]
4. GMPLS protocol updates
Since the establishment of the original GMPLS protocol specifications,
additional functionalities have been added so far summarized as
follows.
Original signaling specifications [RFC3471, RFC3473] were mainly
updated for the inclusion of
T. Otani et al. Informational - Expires May 16, 2008 3
INTERNET-DRAFT Nov. 11, 2007
- Egress support [RFC4003]
- OTN support [RFC4328]
- Exclude route [RFC4874]
- Recovery of end-to-end and segment-by-segment [RFC4872, RFC4873]
- Call support [RFC4974]
Moreover, in the future, this will be also updated by
- Ethernet support
- Lambda support
5. Missing pieces of GMPLS MIB Family
Here is a possible list of future inclusion to GMPLS MIB Family.
Inclusion will be determined according to GMPLS OAM requirements
[GMPLS-OAM-REQ].
(1) Node
- Ingress and Egress port control information of each LSP
- OTN label as GMPLS label types
- Administrative status of cross-connections for recovery purpose
(2) Paths
- GMPLS recovery types of LSPs
- LSP status information related with recovery
- Ingress/Egress port information of GMPLS LSPs
(3) Link
- OTN as an encoding type
6. Security consideration
This document introduces no new security considerations in [RFC3471]
and [RFC3471].
7. IANA Considerations
A. Must specify if IANA has to create a new registry or modify rules
for an existing registry.
B. Must specify if the document requires IANA to assign or update
values in an IANA registry before RFC publication.
C. See "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in
RFCs" [RFC2434] (Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs, " October 1998.) and
in some cases also "IANA Allocation Guidelines For Values In the
Internet Protocol and Related Headers" [RFC2780] (Bradner, S. and V.
Paxson, "IANA Allocation Guidelines For Values In the Internet
Protocol and Related Headers, " March 2000.). In some case "Assigning
Experimental and Testing Numbers Considered Useful" [RFC3692] (Narten,
T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers Considered Useful,"
January 2004.) may help as well.
D.
T. Otani et al. Informational - Expires May 16, 2008 4
INTERNET-DRAFT Nov. 11, 2007
If there is no action for IANA, the section should say that, e.g.,
including something like "This document has no actions for IANA."
8. Acknowledgement
The authors would like to express their thanks to Adrian Farrel for
the discussion.
9. Intellectual property considerations
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.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4801] T. Nadeau and A. Farrel, Ed., "Definitions of Textual
Conventions for Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Management", RFC4801, Feb. 2007.
[RFC4803] T. Nadeau and A. Farrel, Ed., "Generalized Multiprotocol
Label Switching (GMPLS) Label Switching Router (LSR) Management
Information Base", RFC4803, Feb. 2007.
[RFC3813] C. Srinivasan, et al., "Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Label Switching Router (LSR) Management Information Base
(MIB)", RFC3813, June 2004.
T. Otani et al. Informational - Expires May 16, 2008 5
INTERNET-DRAFT Nov. 11, 2007
[RFC4802] T. Nadeau and A. Farrel, Ed., "Generalized Multiprotocol
Label Switching (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Management Information
Base", RFC4802, Feb. 2007.
[RFC3812] C. Srinivasan, et al., "Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Management Information Base (MIB)",
RFC3812, June 2004.
[RFC4631] M. Dubuc, et al., "Link Management Protocol (LMP)
Management Information Base (MIB)", RFC4631, Sept. 2006.
[RFC4220] M. Dubuc, et al., "Traffic Engineering Link Management
Information Base", RFC4220, Nov. 2005.
[RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, January 2003.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(MPLS} Signaling - Resource ReserVation Protocol Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC4003] Berger, L., "GMPLS Signaling Procedure for Egress Control",
RFC4003, Feb. 2005.
[RFC4328] D. Papadimitriou, Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical Transport
Networks Control", RFC4328, Jan. 2007.
[RFC4874] CY. Lee, et al., "Exclude Routes - Extension to Resource
ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) ", RFC4874, April
2007.
[RFC4872] J.P. Lang, Ed., "RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-
End Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery",
RFC4872, May 2007.
[RFC4873] L. Berger, "GMPLS Segment Recovery", RFC4873, May 2007.
[RFC4974] D. Papadimitriou, et al., "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) RSVP-TE
Signaling Extensions in Support of Calls", RFC4974, Aug. 2007.
10.2. Normative References
[GMPLS-TED-MIB] T. Otani, et al., "Traffic Engineering Database
Management Information Base in support of GMPLS", draft-ietf-ccamp-
gmpls-ted-mib-02.txt, July 2007.
[GMPLS-OAM-REQ] T. Nadeau, et al, "OAM Requirements for Generalized
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Networks", draft-ietf-ccamp-
gmpls-oam-requirements-00.txt, Oct. 2007.
11. Author's Addresses
T. Otani et al. Informational - Expires May 16, 2008 6
INTERNET-DRAFT Nov. 11, 2007
Tomohiro Otani
KDDI R&D Laboratories, Inc.
2-1-15 Ohara Fujimino Phone: +81-49-278-7357
Saitama, 356-8502. Japan Email: otani@kddilabs.jp
Masanori Miyazawa
KDDI R&D Laboratories, Inc.
2-1-15 Ohara Fujimino Phone: +81-49-278-7559
Saitama, 356-8502. Japan Email: ma-miyazawa@kddilabs.jp
Document expiration
This document will be expired in May 16, 2008, unless it is updated.
Copyright statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
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.
T. Otani et al. Informational - Expires May 16, 2008 7