One document matched: draft-bala-uni-signaling-extensions-00.txt
Internet Draft Bala Rajagopalan
draft-bala-uni-signaling-extensions-00.txt Tellium, Inc.
Expiration : December, 10, 2002
LMP, LDP and RSVP Extensions for Optical UNI Signaling
1. Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
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.
2. Abstract
The Optical Interworking Forum (OIF) has defined extensions to the
Link Management Protocol (LMP), the Label Distribution Protocol
(LDP) and the Resource reServation Protocol (RSVP) for optical User
Network Interface (UNI) signaling. These extensions consist of a set
of new messages and data objects. This draft describes these
extensions.
3. Introduction
The OIF UNI signaling specification is described in [UNI]. This
specification utilizes IETF protocol standards as well as IETF work
in progress. Specifically, the following IETF specifications are
used:
o Link management protocol (LMP) [LMP]
o Label distribution protocol (LDP) [LDP]
o Resource reservation protocol (RSVP) [RSVP]
o GMPLS signaling and GMPLS extensions for SONET/SDH [GMPLS
SONET]
o GMPLS RSVP-TE and CR-LDP extensions [GMPLS RSVP-TE][GMPLS CR-
LDP]
Page 1 of 9
draft-oif-uni-signaling-extensions-00.txt
The aim of the OIF UNI specification is the maximal re-use of IETF
protocol definitions. A few extensions to IETF protocols, however,
have been defined to serve UNI-specific needs. These extensions are
described in this draft.
4. LMP Extensions for UNI Signaling
UNI service discovery utilizes extensions to LMP. These extensions
consist of three new LMP messages and one new LMP data object class.
The new LMP messages defined are: ServiceConfig, ServiceConfigAck,
and ServiceConfigNack. These are described below:
4.1 ServiceConfig (Message Type = 50, To Be Assigned)
The format of the ServiceConfig message is as follows:
<ServiceConfig Message> ::= <Common Header> <LOCAL_NODE_ID>
<MESSAGE_ID>
<Service Config>
Where
<Common Header> is the LMP common header [LMP]
<LOCAL_NODE_ID> is the LMP Object (Class = 3, C-Type = 1)[LMP]
<MESSAGE_ID> is the LMP Object (Class = 9, C-Type = 1)[LMP]
<ServiceConfig> is the new ServiceConfig Object Class (Class = 51,
TBA) as defined below.
The manner in which ServiceConfig messages are sent and processed is
described in [UNI].
4.2 ServiceConfigAck (Message Type = 51, TBA)
The ServiceConfigAck message has the following format:
<ServiceConfigAck Message> ::= <Common Header> <LOCAL_NODE_ID>
<MESSAGE_ID_ACK>
where:
<Common Header> is the LMP common header [LMP]
<LOCAL_NODE_ID> is the LMP Object (Class = 3, C-Type = 1)[LMP]
<MESSAGE_ID_ACK> is the LMP Object (Class = 10, C-Type = 1)[LMP]
4.3 ServiceConfigNack (Message Type = 52, TBA)
The ServiceConfigNack message has the following format:
<ServiceConfigNack Message> ::= <Common Header> <LOCAL_NODE_ID>
<MESSAGE_ID_ACK> <ServiceConfig>,
where
<Common Header> is the LMP common header [LMP]
Expires on 4/10/02 Page 2 of 9
draft-oif-uni-signaling-extensions-00.txt
<LOCAL_NODE_ID> is the LMP Object (Class = 3, C-Type = 1)[LMP]
<MESSAGE_ID_ACK> is the LMP Object (Class = 10, C-Type = 1)[LMP]
<ServiceConfig> is the new ServiceConfig Object Class (Class = 51,
TBA) as defined below.
4.4 ServiceConfig Object
The format of the ServiceConfig object 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|N| C-Type |Class=51 (TBA) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// (ServiceConfig Object Content) //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The following ServiceConfig Object Contents are currently defined
[UNI]:
Signaling Protocols: C-Type = 1
Client Port-Level Service Attributes: C-Type = 2
Network Transparency and TCM Monitoring: C-Type = 3
Network Diversity: C-Type = 4
The format of these objects is described in [UNI].
5. LDP Extensions for UNI Signaling
The LDP extensions for UNI signaling consist of two new messages,
new TLVs that capture UNI-specific parameters and new UNI-specific
status codes. The new messages are Status Enquiry and Status
Response. The new TLVs are Source ID (3 TLVs), Destination ID (3
TLVs), Egress Label, Local Connection ID, Diversity, Contract ID,
and UNI Service Level [UNI]. These are described below. The new
status codes are assigned from the private use space of LDP codes,
as described in [UNI].
5.1 Status Enquiry Message
The encoding for the Status Enquiry Message is:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|F|Status Enquiry (0x0420,TBA)| Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Message Contents //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Expires on 4/10/02 Page 3 of 9
draft-oif-uni-signaling-extensions-00.txt
The contents and usage of this message are described in [UNI].
5.2 Status Response Message
The encoding for the Status Response Message is:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|F|Status Enquiry (0x0421,TBA)| Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Message Contents //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The contents and usage of this message are described in [UNI].
5.3 Source ID TLVs
Three TLVs are defined for Source ID. These are encoded as:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|F|Source ID Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Contents ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The three possible Source ID Types are:
Ipv4: Type = 0x0960 (TBA)
Ipv6: Type = 0x0961 (TBA)
NSAP: Type = 0x0962 (TBA)
The content and usage of these TLVs are described in [UNI].
5.4 Destination ID TLVs
Three TLVs are defined for Destination ID. These are encoded as:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|F|Dest ID Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Contents ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The three possible Dest ID Types are:
Expires on 4/10/02 Page 4 of 9
draft-oif-uni-signaling-extensions-00.txt
Ipv4: Type = 0x0963 (TBA)
Ipv6: Type = 0x0964 (TBA)
NSAP: Type = 0x0965 (TBA)
The content and usage of these TLVs are described in [UNI].
5.5 Egress Label TLV
The Egress Label TLV is encoded as:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|F|Egress Label (0x966, TBA) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Contents ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The content and usage of this TLV are described in [UNI].
5.6 Local Connection ID TLV
The Local Connection ID TLV is encoded as:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|F|Local Conn. ID (0x967, TBA)| Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Contents ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The content and usage of this TLV are described in [UNI].
5.7 Diversity TLV
The Diversity TLV is encoded as:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|F|Diversity (0x968, TBA) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Contents ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Expires on 4/10/02 Page 5 of 9
draft-oif-uni-signaling-extensions-00.txt
The content and usage of this TLV are described in [UNI].
5.8 Contract ID TLV
The Contract ID TLV is encoded as:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|F|Contract ID (0x969, TBA) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Contents ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The content and usage of this TLV are described in [UNI].
5.9 UNI Service Level TLV
The UNI Service Level TLV is encoded as:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|F|Contract ID (0x970, TBA) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Contents ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The content and usage of this TLV are described in [UNI].
6. RSVP Extensions for UNI Signaling
A single new object class, called "Generalized_UNI" is defined. In
addition, extension to the RSVP session object and new UNI-specific
error codes are defined. These are described below.
6.1 Generalized_UNI Object
The GENERALIZED_UNI object has the following format:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length (>8) | Class-Num(TBA)| C-Type (1) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// (Subobjects) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Subobjects:
Expires on 4/10/02 Page 6 of 9
draft-oif-uni-signaling-extensions-00.txt
The contents of a GENERALIZED_UNI object are a series of variable-
length data items. The common format of the sub-objects is shown
below:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | Type | Sub-Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Value //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The following sub-objects are defined. The contents of these sub-
objects are described in [UNI]:
- Source TNA Address sub-object: Type = 1.
The following sub-types are defined:
Ipv4 (Sub-type = 1);
Ipv6 (Sub-type = 2);
NSAP (Sub-type = 3).
- Destination TNA Address sub-object: Type = 2;
The following sub-types are defined:
Ipv4 (Sub-type = 1);
Ipv6 (Sub-type = 2);
NSAP (Sub-type = 3).
- Diversity sub-object: Type = 3, Sub-type = 1.
- Egress label sub-object: Type = 4, Sub-type = 1.
- Service level sub-object: Type = 5, Sub-type = 1.
6.2 UNI_Ipv4_Session Object
This object [RSVP-TE] has the following format:
UNI_ IPv4_SESSION object: Class = 1, C-Type = TBA
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length (16) | Class-Num(1) | C-Type (TBA) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MUST be zero | Tunnel ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Extended IPv4 Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The C-Type value (to be assigned) will distinguish UNI-related RSVP
Sessions from other RSVP sessions. The usage of this object is
described in [UNI].
Expires on 4/10/02 Page 7 of 9
draft-oif-uni-signaling-extensions-00.txt
6.3 Error Codes
UNI-specific errors fall under the "Routing Problem" (error code =
24) [RSVP-TE] and "Policy Control Failure" (error code = 2) [RSVP]
errors, and they require the assignment of sub-codes. The
following is the list of errors and proposed assignments of sub-
codes:
- Routing Problem: Diversity not available (Error code = 24, sub-
code = 100)
- Routing Problem: Service level not available (Error code = 24,
sub-code = 101)
- Routing problem: Invalid/Unknown connection ID (Error code = 24,
sub-code = 102)
- Policy control failure: Unauthorized sender (Error code = 2, sub-
code = 100)
- Policy control failure: Unauthorized receiver (Error code = 2,
sub-code = 101)
7. IANA Considerations
The OIF UNI 1.0 specification defines new messages, objects and
error codes under LMP, LDP and RSVP. Majority of these extensions
require code point assignments via IETF consensus action. These are
summarized below.
7.1 LMP Messages and Objects
Proposed message types 50, 51 and 52 as described in Sections 4.1,
4.2 and 4.3 above.
Proposed object class 51 as described in Section 4.4 above. The C-
types under this class need not be administered by IANA, as this
class is UNI-specific.
7.2 LDP Messages, TLVs and Status Codes
Proposed message types 0x0420 and 0x0421 as described in Sections
5.1 and 5.2, respectively.
Proposed TLV types 0x0960 - 0x0970 as described in Sections 5.3 -
5.9 above.
UNI-specific status codes have been allocated out of the Private Use
space, i.e., 0x3Fxxxxxx. These do not require IANA administration.
7.3 RSVP Object Class and Error Codes
Proposed Generalized_UNI object class (Section 6.1), Class Number to
be assigned (of the form 11bbbbbb).The C-types within this class
need not be administered by IANA.
Expires on 4/10/02 Page 8 of 9
draft-oif-uni-signaling-extensions-00.txt
Proposed UNI_Ipv4_Session Object (Class-Num = 1, C-Type = TBA), as
described in Section 6.2.
UNI-specific errors fall under the Routing Problem and Policy
Control Failure errors (error codes 24 and 2). Proposed sub-codes
under error code 24 are 100, 101 and 102, as described in Section
6.2. Proposed sub-codes under error code 2 are 100 and 101, as
described in Section 6.3.
8. References
[GMPLS SIG] P. Ashwood-Smith, et al., "Generalized MPLS - Signaling
Functional Description", Internet Draft, draft-ietf- mpls-
generalized-signaling-06.txt, Work in Progress.
[GMPLS RSVP-TE] P. Ashwood-Smith, et al., "Generalized MPLS - RSVP-
TE Extensions", Internet Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-
-05.txt, Work in Progress.
[GMPLS CR-LDP] P. Ashwood-Smith, et al., "Generalized MPLS - CR-LDP
Extensions", Internet Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-
03.txt, Work in Progress.
[GMPLS SONET] E. Mannie, et al., "GMPLS Extensions for SONET and SDH
Control," Internet Draft, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-01.txt,
Work in Progress.
[LMP] J.P Lang, et al, "Link Management Protocol", Internet Draft,
draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-01.txt, Work in Progress.
[RSVP] R. Braden, et al, "RSVP Functional Specification", RFC 2205.
[RSVP-TE] D. Awduche, et al., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels," draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-tunnel-09.txt, Work in
Progress.
[UNI] UNI 1.0 Signaling Specification, The Optical Internetworking
Forum, http://www.oiforum.com/public/liaisondocs.htm
9. Author Information
Bala Rajagopalan
Tellium, Inc.
2 Crescent Place
Ocean Port, NJ 07757
Ph: +1-732-923-4237
Email: braja@tellium.com
Expires on 4/10/02 Page 9 of 9
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-22 23:16:36 |