datatracker.ietf.org
Sign in
Version 5.3.0, 2014-04-12
Report a bug

Liaison Statement: T-MPLS Consented Recommendations

Submission Date: 2006-04-02
From: ITU-T SG 15 (Greg Jones)
To: IETF MPLS WG, CC: MFA Forum (George Swallow, Loa Andersson)
Cc:info@mfaforum.org
maeda@ansl.ntt.co.jp
sjtrowbridge@lucent.com
rcallon@juniper.net
fenner@research.att.com
sob@harvard.edu
sbrim@cisco.com
mpls@lists.ietf.org
Response Contact: tsbsg15@itu.int
Technical Contact: Ghani.Abbas@marconi.com
mark.jones@sprint.com
betts01@nortel.com
Purpose: For action
Deadline: 2006-04-17 Action Taken
Attachments: Consented Text of G.8110.1
Consented Text of G.8112
Consented Text of G.8121
Body:
We apologize for not having sent a liaison regarding three consented
Recommendations related to 
T-MPLS. The intent of these Recommendations is not to change MPLS but
rather to identify a 
subset of existing MPLS necessary and sufficient to provide
connection-oriented packet transport.
The approach to the work was to make a profile of the MPLS data plane
functionalities defined in 
IETF RFCs using the description of MPLS provided in G.8110 (which was
approved last year).  
The intended application of this profile is to provide a
connection-oriented packet transport 
network.
The focus of the three new recommendations is on the data plane aspects
of T-MPLS. Control plane 
aspects are currently for further study and the work on this subject is
starting.
According to our work methodology the T-MPLS definitions are split into
the three main 
Recommendations that have been consented in February 2006:
*	G.8110.1 dealing with the T-MPLS Architecture
*	G.8112 dealing with T-MPLS interface specification
*	G.8121 dealing with T-MPLS equipment functional specification
A brief high-level introduction of the essential features and selected
options for Transport MPLS 
can be found in section 6/G.8110.1.
The objective of the work done by ITU-T SG15 was to define a way to use
MPLS as a connection-
oriented packet-based transport solution for packet aware transport
networks that can support both 
packet and circuit (e.g. SDH, OTH or WDM) switching technologies under
a common operation, 
control and management paradigm. For this purpose T-MPLS deploys the
MPLS frame format, 
Client to MPLS mapping and MPLS to MPLS multiplexing and complements
this with transport 
network OAM (Y.1711), nested connection monitoring requiring the labels
to be present up to the 
final node in the network, protection switching (Y.1720/G.8131),
transport network based control 
and management planes, maintaining frame ordering and a restricted
number of classes of 
service/queues.
*	MPLS has many applications and it is desirable to identify a subset
of MPLS technology that 
provides the necessary and sufficient functionality for transport
applications.
We have indicated below some of the options we have selected :-
*	In IETF RFCs the usage of PHP is optional. We decided not to use it
in order to simplify OAM 
procedures
*	In IETF RFCs the usage of merging is optional. We decided not to use
it in order to simplify 
OAM procedures and also because the relative lower number of LSPs to be
supported is not 
considered a major scaling issue
*	The usage of ECMP is optional. We decided not to use it in order to
simplify OAM procedures
*	Leaving labels 16-31 for further study was seen as a no change
because the label allocation on a 
link is defined in IETF RFCs as a local matter for any MPLS device.
We are not expecting that the current version of the specification is
going to create any 
interoperability issue. We envisage two possible cases of
interoperability:
1.	Interoperability between a T-MPLS box and an existing full-featured
and fully configurable 
MPLS box can be solved by configuring the MPLS box to use the same
options selected by T-
MPLS (T-MPLS being a profile of MPLS this should be possible). In this
case the link between 
the two boxes is a T-MPLS link and in the scope of our
Recommendations.
2.	Interoperability between a transport platform supporting T-MPLS and
an existing MPLS box 
that uses a different option selection than T-MPLS, should be solved by
the transport platform. 
In this case the link between the transport platform and the MPLS box
is not a T-MPLS link and 
therefore it is outside the scope of T-MPLS recommendations. We are
looking for cooperation 
with IETF to develop the detailed specification of this case.
Please find attached the text of the consented Recommendations.  Please
note that some minor 
modifications may be made to these draft Recommendations as a result of
comments made during 
the approval process
We will appreciate your comments and suggestions in relation to the
initial scope of T-MPLS as a 
packet transport network technology.
We are planning to review your comments during the next meeting that is
planned in Kobe (Japan) 
on 22-27 April 2006. Results of the comments will be included into our
future work (e.g. corrigenda 
or amendments) on T-MPLS Recommendations. Amendments of T-MPLS
Recommendations are 
already in our plan for the next SG15 plenary meeting in November
2006.We are looking forward 
for future cooperation with you in T-MPLS data plane and control plane
evolution.

Attachments: Consented Text of G.8110.1, G.8112, G.8121