One document matched: draft-ali-mpls-sig-pid-multiplexing-case-00.txt

    
    
   MPLS Working Group                                        Zafar Ali 
   Internet Draft                                   Cisco Systems, Inc. 
   Intended status: Informational                          July 07 2008 
   Expires: January 06 2009 
                                       
    
                                        
     Signaled PID When Multiplexing Multiple Payloads over RSVP-TE LSPs 
                draft-ali-mpls-sig-pid-multiplexing-case-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 

      This Internet-Draft will expire on January 6, 2009. 

   Copyright Notice 

      Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). 

   Abstract 

      There are many deployment scenarios where an RSVP-TE LSP carries 
      multiple payloads. In these cases, it gets ambiguous on what 
      should value should be carried as L3PID in the Label Request 
      Object [RFC3209] or G-PID in the Generalized Label Request Object 
    
    
    
                         Expires January 2009                 [Page 1] 
    
              draft-ali-mpls-sig-pid-multiplexing-case-00.txt 
       

      [RFC3471], [RFC3473]. The document propose use of some dedicated 
      PID values to cover some typical cases of multiple payload 
      carried by the LSP, including that indicates to the egress node 
      to ignore signaling to learn payload carried by the LSP.  

   Table of Contents 

       
      1. Introduction...............................................2 
      2. Some use cases.............................................3 
         2.1. PID = 0x0800 (IPv4 Payload)...........................3 
         2.2. PID = 0x86DD (IPv6 Payload)...........................3 
         2.3. IPv4+IPv6 PID.........................................3 
         2.4. Unknown PID...........................................3 
      3. Security Considerations....................................4 
      4. IANA Considerations........................................4 
      5. References.................................................4 
         5.1. Normative References..................................4 
         5.2. Informative References................................4 
      Author's Addresses............................................4 
      Intellectual Property Statement...............................4 
      Disclaimer of Validity........................................5 
       
   1. Introduction 

      When an RSVP-TE LSP is used to carry multiple payload type (e.g., 
      IPv6 and IPv4 payloads on the same LSP), it gets ambiguous on 
      what value should be carried as L3PID in the Label Request Object 
      [RFC3209] or G-PID in the Generalized Label Request Object 
      [RFC3471], [RFC3473]. It also gets unclear at the receiver that 
      source may be multiplexing multiple payloads on the same RSVP-TE 
      LSP. The document clarifies some of the use cases where RSVP-TE 
      LSP is used to carry multiple payloads and what PID should be 
      used during signaling. It also suggests use of an "unknown" PID 
      in signaling when PID is completely determined by scope outside 
      of signaling.  



                      Expires January 2009                     [Page 2] 
       
              draft-ali-mpls-sig-pid-multiplexing-case-00.txt 
       

      At this stage document is written without use of formal language, 
      but the idea is to first see if the WG feedback on the need for 
      this work.    

   2. Some use cases 

      This section outlines some used cases.   

   2.1. PID = 0x0800 (IPv4 Payload) 

      This case is optimized for carrying IPv4 payload such that IPv4 
      packets travel without need for any additional information 
      (label) to identify the payload, i.e., IPv4 payload is identified 
      by the signaling. If multiplexing of additional payloads is 
      desired, some in-band data plane mechanisms are needed to 
      identify the payload. E.g., if IPv4 and IPv6 payloads are 
      multiplexed on the same tunnel, an IPv6 Explicit Null Label or 
      some other application label is used to identify IPv6 payload.  

   2.2. PID = 0x86DD (IPv6 Payload) 

      This case is optimized for carrying IPv6 payload such that IPv6 
      packets travel without need for any additional information 
      (label) to identify the payload, i.e., IPv6 payload is identified 
      by the signaling. If multiplexing of additional payloads is 
      desired, some in-band data plane mechanisms are needed to 
      identify the payload. E.g., if IPv4 and IPv6 payloads are 
      multiplexed on the same tunnel, an IPv4 Explicit Null Label or 
      some other application label is used to identify IPv4 payload.  

   2.3. IPv4+IPv6 PID 

      This case is optimized for multiplexing IPv4 and IPv6 payloads 
      such that both IPv6 and IPv6 packets travel without need for any 
      additional information (label) to identify the payload. In this 
      case the Egress node looks at the IP version field to identify 
      the payload type (while demultiplexing the traffic). If 
      multiplexing of additional payloads or application is desired, 
      some in-band data plane mechanisms are needed to identify the 
      payload.  

      L3PID and G-PID code point for this are TBA.  

   2.4. Unknown PID 

      This case is the case where payload to be carried by the LSP is 
      not known to the Ingress node. Payload identification is obtained 
      via some means other than signaling and egress node ignores the 
      signaled PID.  
                      Expires January 2009                     [Page 3] 
       
              draft-ali-mpls-sig-pid-multiplexing-case-00.txt 
       

      Unknown PID with code point of 0x00 is already defined for G-PID 
      in the Generalized Label Request Object [RFC3471], [RFC3473]. 
      L3PID code point for this is TBA.  

   3. Security Considerations 

      TBA 

   4. IANA Considerations 

      TBA 

    
   5. References 

   5.1. Normative References 

      [RFC3209] Awduche D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li T., Srinivasan, V., 
      Swallow, G., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC 
      3209, December 2001. 
       
      [RFC3471]  Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label 
      Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, 
      January 2003. 
       
      [RFC3473]  Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label 
      Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic 
      Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. 
    
   5.2. Informative References 

    
   Author's Addresses 

      Zafar Ali 
      Cisco Systems, Inc. 
      Email: zali@cisco.com 
       
   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. 

                      Expires January 2009                     [Page 4] 
       
              draft-ali-mpls-sig-pid-multiplexing-case-00.txt 
       

      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. 

   Disclaimer of Validity 

      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. 

   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. 

       
















                      Expires January 2009                     [Page 5]