One document matched: draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-00.txt
Internet Draft Lou Berger (LabN)
Updates: 3471, 3473, 3945, 4202
Category: Standards Track Don Fedyk (Nortel)
Expiration Date: May 6, 2008
November 6, 2007
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support For Metro Ethernet Forum
and G.8011 Ethernet Services
draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-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/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 6, 2008.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract
This document describes a method for controlling Ethernet transport
connections via Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS).
This document supports the types of Ethernet services that have been
defined in the context of the Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) and
International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Specifically, Ethernet
private line service and Ethernet virtual private line service.
Support for the MEF and ITU defined Services parameters are also
covered.
Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 1]
Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-00.txt November 6, 2007
Contents
1 Introduction .............................................. 3
1.1 Overview .................................................. 3
1.2 Conventions used in this document ......................... 4
2 Common Signaling Support .................................. 5
2.1 Ethernet Endpoint (UNI) Identification .................... 5
2.1.1 Endpoint ID TLV ........................................... 5
2.1.2 Notify Message Format ..................................... 6
2.2 Connection Identification ................................. 7
2.2.1 Procedures ................................................ 7
2.3 Traffic Parameters ........................................ 8
2.3.1 L2 Control Protocol TLV ................................... 8
2.4 Bundling and VLAN Identification .......................... 9
3 EPL Service ............................................... 10
3.1 Data Channel Switching .................................... 10
3.2 EPL Service Parameters .................................... 11
4 EVPL Service .............................................. 11
4.1 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST Object .............. 12
4.2 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object ...................... 12
4.2.1 EVPL Generalized Label Format ............................. 15
4.3 Other Label related Objects ............................... 15
4.4 Egress VLAN ID Control and VLAN ID preservation ........... 15
4.5 Single Call - Single LSP .................................. 16
4.6 Single Call - Multiple LSPs ............................... 16
5 IANA Considerations ....................................... 16
5.1 Endpoint ID Attributes TLV ................................ 17
5.2 Data Channel Switching Type ............................... 17
5.3 Line LSP Encoding ......................................... 17
5.4 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST Object .............. 18
5.5 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object ...................... 18
6 Security Considerations ................................... 18
7 References ................................................ 19
7.1 Normative References ...................................... 19
7.2 Informative References .................................... 20
8 Acknowledgments ........................................... 20
9 Author's Addresses ........................................ 20
10 Full Copyright Statement .................................. 21
11 Intellectual Property ..................................... 21
Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 2]
Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-00.txt November 6, 2007
1. Introduction
[MEF6] and [G.8011] provide a parallel framework for defining
network-oriented characteristics of Ethernet services in transport
networks. The framework discusses general Ethernet connection
characteristics, Ethernet User-Network Interfaces (UNIs) and Ethernet
Network-Network Interfaces (NNIs). Within this framework, [G.8011.1]
defines the Ethernet Private Line (EPL) service and [G.8011.2]
defines the Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) service. [MEF6]
covers both service types. [MEF10.1] defines service parameters and
[MEF11] provides UNI requirements and framework.
This document provides a method for GMPLS based control of the
Ethernet services defined in the above documents. This document
defines the core GMPLS extensions needed to support the services, but
does not define the UNI or External NNI (E-NNI) reference points.
See [GMPLS-MEF-UNI] for a description of the UNI reference point.
This document makes use of the traffic parameters defined in [MEF-
TRAFFIC].
1.1. Overview
This document uses a largely common approach to supporting the
Ethernet services defined in [MEF6], [G.8011.1] and [G.8011.2]. The
approach builds on standard GMPLS mechanisms to deliver the required
control capabilities. This document reuses the GMPLS mechanisms
specified in [RFC3473] and [RFC4974]. The document also expands
expands the set of signaling parameters in a fashion consistent with
existing GMPLS signaling.
Two types of connectivity between Ethernet endpoints are defined in
[MEF6] and [G.8011]: point-to-point (P2P) and multipoint-to-
multipoint (MP2MP). [MEF6] uses the term Ethernet Line (E-line) to
refer to point-to-point virtual connections, and Ethernet LAN (E-LAN)
to refer to multipoint-to-multipoint virtual connections. [G.8011]
also identifies point-to-multipoint (P2MP) as an area for "further
study." Within the context of GMPLS, support is defined for point-
to-point unidirectional and bidirectional TE Label Switched Paths
(LSPs), see [RFC3473], and unidirectional point-to-multipoint TE
LSPs, see [RFC4875].
Support for P2P and MP2MP service is required by [G.8011] and
[MEF11]. Note that while [MEF11] requires MP2MP, [G.8011.1] and
[G.8011.2] only require P2P. There is a clear correspondence between
E-Line/P2P service and GMPLS P2P TE LSPs, and support for such
services are included in the scope of this document. There is no
such clear correspondence between E-LAN/MP2MP service and GMPLS TE
Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 3]
Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-00.txt November 6, 2007
LSPs. Although it is possible to emulate the service using multiple
P2P or P2MP TE LSPs. The definition of support for MP2MP service is
left for future study and is not addressed in this document.
[MEF11] defines multiple types of control for UNI Ethernet services.
In MEF UNI Type 1, services are configured manually. In MEF UNI Type
2, services may be configured manually or via a link management
interface. In MEF UNI Type 3, services may be established and
managed via a signaling interface. From the MEF perspective, this
document is aimed at the network control needed to support the MEF
UNI Type 3 mode of operation.
[G.8011.1], [G.8011.2] and [MEF11] together with [MEF10.1] define a
set of service attributes that are associated with each Ethernet
connection. Some of these attributes are based on the provisioning
of the local physical connection and are not modifiable or selectable
per connection. Other attributes are specific to a particular
connection, or must be consistent across the connection. The
approach taken in this document is to exclude the static class of
attributes from signaling. Such attributes also will not be
explicitly discussed in this document. The other class of attributes
are communicated via signaling and will be reviewed in the sections
below. The major attributes that will be supported in signaling
include:
- Endpoint identifiers
- Connection identifiers
- Traffic parameters (see [MEF-TRAFFIC])
- Bundling / VLAN IDs map (EVPL only)
- VLAN ID Preservation (EVPL only)
Common procedures used to support Ethernet connections are described
in Section 2 of this document. Procedures related to signaling EPL
services are described in Section 3. Procedures related to EVPL
signaling services are described in Section 4.
1.2. 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 [RFC2119].
Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 4]
Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-00.txt November 6, 2007
2. Common Signaling Support
This section describes the common mechanisms for supporting GMPLS
signaled control of Ethernet connections as defined in [MEF11],
[G.8011.1] and [G.8011.2].
Except as specifically modified in this document, the procedures
related to the processing of RSVP objects is not modified by this
document. The relevant procedures in existing documents, such as
[RFC3473], MUST be followed in all cases not explicitly described in
this document.
2.1. Ethernet Endpoint (UNI) Identification
Ethernet endpoint (UNI) identifiers, as they are defined in [G.8011]
and [MEF10.1], differ significantly from the identifiers used by
GMPLS. Specifically, the Ethernet endpoint (UNI) identifiers are
character based as apposed to the GMPLS norm of being IP address
based.
The approach taken by this document to address this disparity
leverages the solution used for connection identification, see next
section and [RFC4974], and an LSP attributes object, see [RFC4420].
The solution makes use of the [RFC4974] short call ID, and supports
the Ethernet endpoint identifier much like [RFC4974] supports the
long call ID. That is, the SENDER_TEMPLATE and SESSION objects carry
IP addresses and a short call ID, and both long identifiers are
carried in attributes objects. As with the long call ID, the
Ethernet endpoint identifier is typically only relevant at the
ingress and egress nodes.
As defined below, the Ethernet endpoint identifier is carried in the
LSP_ATTRIBUTES object in a new TLV. The new TLV is referred to as
the Endpoint ID TLV. The processing of the Endpoint ID TLV parallels
the processing of the long call ID in [RFC4974]. This processing
requires a change to Notify message format to allow the inclusion of
the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object.
2.1.1. Endpoint ID TLV
The Endpoint ID TLV follows the Attributes TLV format defined in
[RFC4420]. The Endpoint ID TLV has uses the Type value of TBA (by
IANA).
Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 5]
Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-00.txt November 6, 2007
The TLV 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (TBA) | Length (variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Endpoint ID |
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
See [RFC4420] for a description of the Type and Length fields.
Note that per [RFC4420], the Length field is set to the unpadded
length of the Endpoint ID field.
Endpoint ID
The Endpoint ID field is a variable length field that carries
an endpoint identifier, see [MEF10.1] and [G.8011]. This field
MUST be null padded as defined in [RFC4420].
2.1.1.1. Procedures
The use of the Endpoint ID TLV is required during call management.
When a call is established or torn down per [RFC4974], an
LSP_ATTRIBUTES object containing an Endpoint ID TLV MUST be included
in the Notify message along with the Long Call ID.
Short Call ID processing, including those procedures related to call
and connection processing, is not modified by this document and MUST
proceed according to [RFC4974].
An LSP_ATTRIBUTES object containing an Endpoint ID TLV MAY be
included in the signaling messages of an LSP (connection) associated
with an established call. Such objects are processed according to the
[RFC4420].
2.1.2. Notify Message Format
The Notify message format is extended based on the format defined in
[RFC4974] to allow for the use of the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object as
defined in this document. The LSP_ATTRIBUTES object MUST be present
when signaling for Ethernet Services as defined in this document is
supported, and SHOULD follow the SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object.
Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 6]
Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-00.txt November 6, 2007
The format of the Notify Message is updated as follows:
<Notify message> ::= see [RFC4974]
<notify session> ::= <SESSION> [ <ADMIN_STATUS> ]
[ <POLICY_DATA> ...]
[ <LINK_CAPABILITY> ]
[ <SESSION_ATTRIBUTE> ]
[ <LSP_ATTRIBUTES> ]
[ <sender descriptor> | <flow descriptor> ]
<sender descriptor> ::= see [RFC3473]
<flow descriptor> ::= see [RFC3473]
2.2. Connection Identification
Signaling for Ethernet connections follows the procedures defined in
[RFC4974]. In particular the Call related mechanisms are reused to
support endpoint identification. In the context of Ethernet
connections, a call only exists when one or more LSPs (connections in
[RFC4974] terms) are present. An LSP will always be established
within the context of a call and, typically, only one LSP will be
used per call. See Section 4 for the case where more than one LSP
may exist within a call.
2.2.1. Procedures
Any node that supports Ethernet connections MUST be able to accept
and process call setups per [RFC4974]. Ethernet connections
established according to this document MUST treat the Ethernet
(virtual) connection identifier as the long "Call identifier (ID)",
described in [RFC4974]. The short Call ID MUST be used as described
in [RFC4974]. Use of the LINK_CAPABILITY object is OPTIONAL. Both
network-initiated and user-initiated Calls MUST be supported.
When establishing an Ethernet connection the initiator MUST first
establish a Call per the procedures defined in [RFC4974]. LSP
management, including removal and addition, then follows [RFC4974].
As stated in [RFC4974], once a Call is established the initiator
SHOULD establish at least one Ethernet LSP. Also, when the last LSP
associated with a Call is removed, the Call SHOULD be torn down per
the procedures in [RFC4974].
Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 7]
Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-00.txt November 6, 2007
2.3. Traffic Parameters
Several types of service attributes are carried in the traffic
parameters defined in [MEF-TRAFFIC]. These parameters are carried in
the FLOWSPEC and TSPEC objects as discussed in [MEF-TRAFFIC]. The
service attributes that are carried are:
- Bandwidth Profile
- VLAN CoS Preservation
- L2 Control Protocol Processing (see Section 2.3.1)
Ethernet connections established according to this document MUST use
the traffic parameters defined in [MEF-TRAFFIC] in the FLOWSPEC and
TSPEC objects.
2.3.1. L2 Control Protocol TLV
[MEF10.1], [8011.1] and [8011.2] define service attributes that
impact the layer two (L2) control protocol processing at the service
ingress and service egress. [MEF-TRAFFIC] does not define support
for these service attributes, but does allow the attributes to be
carried in a TLV. This section defines the L2 Control Protocol
(L2CP) TLV to carry the L2 control protocol processing related
service attributes.
The format of the L2 Control Protocol (L2CP) TLV 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type=2 | Length=4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IL2CP | EL2CP | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
See [MEF-TRAFFIC] for a description of the Type and Length fields.
Per [MEF-TRAFFIC], the Type field MUST be set to two (2), and the
Length field MUST be set to four (4) for the L2CP TLV.
Ingress Layer 2 Control Processing (IL2CP): 4 bits
This field controls processing of Layer 2 Control Protocols
on a receiving interface. Valid usage is service specific,
see [MEF10.1], [8011.1] and [8011.2].
Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 8]
Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-00.txt November 6, 2007
Permitted values are:
Value Description Reference
----- ----------- ---------
0 Reserved
1 Discard/Block [MEF10.1], [8011.1] and [8011.2]
2 Peer/Process [MEF10.1], [8011.1] and [8011.2]
3 Pass to EVC/Pass [MEF10.1], [8011.1] and [8011.2]
4 Peer and Pass to EVC [MEF10.1]
Egress Layer 2 Control Processing (EL2CP): 4 bits
This field controls processing of Layer 2 Control Protocols on
a transmitting interface. When MEF services are used a value
of 1 MUST be used, other valid usage is service specific, see
[8011.1] and [8011.2].
Permitted values are:
Value Description Reference
----- ----------- ---------
0 Reserved
1 Based on IL2CP Value [MEF10.1]
2 Generate [8011.1] and [8011.2]
3 None [8011.1] and [8011.2]
4 Reserved
Reserved: 24 bits
This field is reserved. It MUST be set to zero on transmission
and MUST be ignored on receipt. This field SHOULD be passed
unmodified by transit nodes.
Ethernet connections established according to this document MUST
include the L2CP TLV in the [MEF-TRAFFIC] traffic parameters carried
in the FLOWSPEC and TSPEC objects.
2.4. Bundling and VLAN Identification
The control of bundling and listing of VLAN identifiers is only
supported for EVPL services. EVPL service specific details are
provided in Section 4.
Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 9]
Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-00.txt November 6, 2007
3. EPL Service
Both [MEF6] and [G.8011.1] define an Ethernet Private Line (EPL)
services. In the words of [G.8011.1], EPL services carry "Ethernet
characteristic information over dedicated bandwidth, point-to-point
connections, provided by SDH, ATM, MPLS, PDH, ETY or OTH server layer
networks." [G.8011.1] defines two types of Ethernet Private Line
(EPL) services. Both types present a service where all data
presented on a port is transported to the corresponding connect port.
The types differ in that EPL type 1 service operates at the MAC frame
layer, while EPL type 2 service operates at the line (e.g., 8B/10B)
encoding layer. [MEF6] only defines one type of EPL service, and it
matches [G.8011.1] EPL type 1 service. Support for both types of EPL
services are detailed below.
3.1. Data Channel Switching
Both types of EPL services represent a form of switching that is not
well represented in the switching types defined in [RFC3945] and
[RFC3471]. Current switching types support switching at the packet
(PSC), frame (L2SC), time-slot (TDM), frequency (LSC) and fiber (FSC)
granularity. EPL service supports switching on a per data channel
basis. In EPL specific terms, EPL represents a service where all
data received on an ingress port is switched through the network to
an egress port. While there are similarities between this level of
switching and the "opaque single wavelength" case described in
Section 3.5 of [RFC4202], EPL service support is not limited to the
optical switching technology implied by the LSC type. Therefore, a
new switching type is defined to support EPL service.
The new Switching Type is called Data Channel Switching Capable
(DCSC). DCSC interfaces are able to support switching of the whole
digital channel presented on single channel interfaces. Interfaces
that inherently support multiple channels, e.g., WDM and channelized
TDM interfaces, are specifically excluded from this type. Any
interface that can be represented as a single digital channel are
included. Examples include concatenated TDM and line encoded
interfaces. Framed interfaces may also be included when they support
switching on an interface granularity.
DCSC is represented in GMPLS, see [RFC3471] and [RFC4202], using the
value TBA (by IANA).
Port labels, as defined in [RFC3471], SHOULD be used on interfaces
where the LSP is signaled using the DCSC Switching Type.
Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 10]
Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-00.txt November 6, 2007
3.2. EPL Service Parameters
GMPLS support for the EPL service types only differ in the LSP
Encoding Type used. The LSP Encoding Type used for each are:
EPL Service LSP Encoding Type
----------- -----------------
Type 1/MEF Ethernet (2) [RFC3471]
Type 2 Line (e.g., 8B/10B) (TBA by IANA)
The other LSP parameters specific to EPL Service are:
Parameter Value
-------------- -----
Switching Type DCSC (Section 3.1)
G-PID Ethernet (33) [RFC3471]
The parameters defined in this section MUST be used when establishing
and controlling EPL service type Ethernet connections. The
procedures defined in Section 2 and the other procedures defined in
[RFC3473] for the establishment and management of bidirectional LSPs
MUST be followed when establishing and controlling EPL service type
Ethernet connections.
4. EVPL Service
EVPL service is defined within the context of both [G.8011.2] and
[MEF6]. EVPL service allows for multiple Ethernet connections per
port, each of which supports a specific set of VLAN IDs. The service
attributes identify different forms of EVPL services, e.g., bundled
or unbundled. Independent of the different forms, all EVPL Ethernet
connections are signaled using the same mechanisms to communicate the
one or more VLAN IDs associated with a particular Ethernet
connection.
As with EPL services, EVPL service related connections are signaled
based on the procedures defined in Section 2 and the procedures
defined in [RFC3473]. The relevant [RFC3471] parameter values that
MUST be used for EVPL connections are:
Parameter Value
-------------- -----
Switching Type L2SC (51)
LSP Encoding Type Ethernet (2)
G-PID Ethernet (33)
Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 11]
Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-00.txt November 6, 2007
Bundled EVPL services also require the use of a service specific
Label and related label object types. The new EVPL related label and
the label type objects are defined below. Non-bundled EVPL services
also use the new label and label type objects. A notable implication
of bundled EVPL services and carrying multiple VLAN IDs is that a
Path message may grow to be larger than a single (fragmented or non-
fragmented) IP packet. The basic approach to solving this is to
allow for multiple LSPs which are associated with a single call, see
Section 2.2. The specifics of this approach are describe below in
Section 4.4.
4.1. Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST Object
The Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST object is used to indicate
that the Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object is to be used on the
associated LSP. The format of the Generalized Channel_Set
LABEL_REQUEST object is the same as the Generalized LABEL_REQUEST
object and uses of C-Type of TBA.
The Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST object MUST be used with
LSPs that are being established to support an EVPL service.
4.2. Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object
EVPL service requires support for the communication of one or more
VLAN IDs. In order to enable such communication, a new LABEL object
is defined.
The new object is called the Generalized Channel_Set LABEL object.
The format of the new object is based on the LABEL_SET object defined
in [RFC3473]. It differs from the the LABEL_SET object in that the
full set may be represented in a single object rather than the
multiple objects required by the [RFC3473] LABEL_SET object. The
object MUST be used on LSPs that use the Generalized Channel_Set
LABEL_REQUEST object. The object is processed per [RFC3473].
Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 12]
Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-00.txt November 6, 2007
The format of the Generalized Channel_Set LABEL object 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | Class-Num (16)| C-Type (TBA) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Channel_Set Sub-Object 1 |
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: : :
: : :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Channel_Set Sub-Object N |
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Channel_Set Sub-Object size is measured in bytes and MUST always
be a multiple of 4, and at least 4, and 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Action | Num Subchannels | Label Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Subchannel 1 |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... | :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ :
: : :
: : :
: : :
: : :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Subchannel N |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... | Padding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Action: 8 bits
See [RFC3471] for definition of actions. Range actions SHOULD
be used when possible to minimize the size of the Channel_Set
LABEL Object.
Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 13]
Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-00.txt November 6, 2007
Number of Subchannels: 10 bits
Indicates the number of subchannels carried in the sub-object.
When the number of subchannels required exceeds the limit of
the field, i.e., 1024, multiple Channel_Set Sub-Objects MUST be
used. Note that the size of the sub-object may result in a
Path message being larger than a single unfragmented IP packet.
See section 4.6 for a description of the handling of this case.
A value of zero (0) has special meaning and MAY be used in
either the LABEL or UPSTREAM_LABEL object. A value of zero (0)
is used in a LABEL or UPSTREAM_LABEL object to indicate that
the subchannel(s) used in the corresponding (downstream or
upstream) direction MUST match the subchannel(s) carried in the
reverse directions label object. When value of zero (0) is
used, no Subchannels are included in the Channel_Set Sub-Object
and only one Channel_Set Sub-Object may be present.
Label Type: 14 bits
See [RFC3473] for a description of this field. For LSPs
supporting EVPL service, the Label Type field MUST be set to
indicate a generalized label (2).
Subchannel: Variable
See [RFC3471] for a description of this field. Note that this
field may not be 32 bit aligned.
Padding: Variable
Padding is used to ensure that the length of a Channel_Set Sub-
Object meets the multiple of 4 byte size requirement. The
field is only required when the Subchannel field is not 32 bit
aligned and the number of included Subchannel fields result in
the Sub-Object not being 32 bit aligned.
The Padding field MUST be included when the number of bits
represented in all the Subchannel fields included in a
Generalized Channel_Set Sub-Object result in the Sub-Object not
being 32 bit aligned. When present, the Padding field MUST
have a length that results in the Sub-Object being 32 bit
aligned. When present, the Padding field MUST be set to a zero
(0) value on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
These bits SHOULD be passed through unmodified by transit
nodes.
Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 14]
Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-00.txt November 6, 2007
4.2.1. EVPL Generalized Label Format
LSPs used to support EVPL services MUST use the EVPL Generalized
Label in the Subchannel field of the Generalized Channel_Set LABEL
Object.
The format for the Generalized Label used with EVPL services is:
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Rsvd | VLAN ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Reserved: 4 bits
This field is reserved. It MUST be set to zero on transmission
and MUST be ignored on receipt. This field SHOULD be passed
unmodified by transit nodes.
VLAN ID: 12 bits
A VLAN identifier.
4.3. Other Label related Objects
The previous section introduces a new LABEL object. As such the
formats of the other label related objects are also impacted.
Processing of these objects is not modified and remain per their
respective specifications. The other label related objects are
defined in [RFC3473] and include:
- SUGGESTED_LABEL object
- LABEL_SET object
- ACCEPTABLE_LABEL_SET object
- UPSTREAM_LABEL object
- RECOVERY_LABEL object
4.4. Egress VLAN ID Control and VLAN ID preservation
Per [MEF6], the mapping of the single VLAN ID used at the incoming
interface of the ingress to a different VLAN ID at the outgoing
interface at the egress UNI is allowed for EVPL services that do not
support both bundling and VLAN ID preservation. Such a mapping MUST
be requested and signaled based on the explicit label control
mechanism defined in [RFC3473] and clarified in [RFC4003].
Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 15]
Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-00.txt November 6, 2007
When the explicit label control mechanism is not used VLAN IDs MUST
be preserved, i.e., not modified, across the LSP.
4.5. Single Call - Single LSP
For simplicity in management, a single LSP SHOULD be used for each
EVPL connection whose Path and Resv messages fit within a single
unfragmented IP packet. This allows the reuse of all standard LSP
modification procedures. Of particular note is the modification of
the VLAN IDs associated with the Ethernet connection. Specifically,
when a single LSP is used to support an EVPL connection, make-before-
break procedures, see [RFC3209], SHOULD be used to modify the
Channel_Set LABEL object.
4.6. Single Call - Multiple LSPs
Multiple LSPs MAY be used to support an EVPL service connection. All
such LSPs MUST be established within the same call and follow call
related procedures, see Section 2.2. The primary purpose of multiple
LSPs is to support the case where the related objects result in a
Path message being larger than a single unfragmented IP packet.
When using multiple LSPs, all LSPs associated with the same call /
EVPL connection MUST be signaled with the same LSP objects with the
exception of the SENDER_TEMPLATE, SESSION and label related objects.
All such LSPs SHOULD share resources. When using multiple LSPs, VLAN
IDs MAY be added to the EVPL connection using either a new LSP or the
make-before-break procedures mentioned in the previous section.
Make-before-break procedures on individual LSPs SHOULD be used to
remove VLAN IDs.
To change other service parameters it is necessary to resignal all
LSPs associated with the call via make-before-break procedures.
5. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to administer assignment of new values for
namespaces defined in this document and reviewed in this section.
Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 16]
Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-00.txt November 6, 2007
5.1. Endpoint ID Attributes TLV
Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the assignment in
the "Attributes TLV Space" section of the "RSVP TE Parameters"
registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-
parameters:
Allowed on Allowed on
Type Name LSP_ATTRIBUTES LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Reference
---- ----------- -------------- ----------------------- ---------
2* Endpoint ID Yes Yes [This document]
(*) Suggested value.
5.2. Data Channel Switching Type
Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the assignment in
the "Switching Types" section of the "GMPLS Signaling Parameters"
registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-
parameters:
Value Type Reference
----- --------------------------- ---------
125* Data Channel Switching Capable (DCSC) [This document]
(*) Suggested value.
5.3. Line LSP Encoding
Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the assignment in
the "LSP Encoding Types" section of the "GMPLS Signaling Parameters"
registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-
parameters:
Value Type Reference
----- --------------------------- ---------
14* Line (e.g., 8B/10B) [This document]
(*) Suggested value.
Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 17]
Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-00.txt November 6, 2007
5.4. Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST Object
Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the assignment in
the "Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types" section of the
"RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters.
A new class type for the existing LABEL_REQUEST Object class number
(19) with the following definition:
Class Types or C-Types:
5* Generalized Channel_Set [This document]
(*) Suggested value.
5.5. Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object
Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the assignment in
the "Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types" section of the
"RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters.
A new class type for the existing RSVP_LABEL Object class number (16)
with the following definition:
Class Types or C-Types:
4* Generalized Channel_Set [This document]
(*) Suggested value.
6. Security Considerations
This document introduces new message object formats for use in GMPLS
signaling [RFC3473]. It does not introduce any new signaling
messages, nor change the relationship between LSRs that are adjacent
in the control plane. As such, this document introduces no additional
security considerations. See [RFC3473] for relevant security
considerations.
Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 18]
Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-00.txt November 6, 2007
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[MEF-TRAFFIC] Papadimitriou, D., "MEF Ethernet Traffic
Parameters,"
draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-traffic-parameters-03.txt,
Work in progress, November 2007.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels," RFC 2119.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T.,
Srinivasan, V. and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions
to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC3471] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description",
RFC 3471, January 2003.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling - Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions",
RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC3945] Mannie, E., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October
2004.
[RFC4003] Berger, L., "GMPLS Signaling Procedure for Egress
Control", RFC 4003, February 2005.
[RFC4202] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing
Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005.
[RFC4420] Farrel, A., et al. "Encoding of Attributes for
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path
(LSP) Establishment Using Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 4420,
February 2006.
[RFC4974] Papadimitriou, D., Farrel, A. "Generalized MPLS
(GMPLS) RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in support of Calls",
RFC 4974, August 2007.
Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 19]
Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-00.txt November 6, 2007
7.2. Informative References
[G.8011] ITU-T G.8011/Y.1307, "Ethernet over Transport
Ethernet services framework", August 2004.
[G.8011.1] ITU-T G.G.8011.1/Y.1307.1, "Ethernet private
line service", August 2004.
[G.8011.2] ITU-T G.8011.2/Y.1307.2, "Ethernet virtual
private line service", September 2005.
[GMPLS-MEF-UNI] Berger, L., Papadimitriou, P., Fedyk, D.,
"Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support For Metro
Ethernet Forum and G.8011 User-Network Interface
(UNI)", Work in Progress,
draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-01.txt,
November 2007.
[MEF6] The Metro Ethernet Forum, "Ethernet Services
Definitions - Phase I", MEF 6, June 2004
[MEF10.1] The Metro Ethernet Forum, "Ethernet Services
Attributes Phase 2", MEF 10.1, November 2006.
[MEF11] The Metro Ethernet Forum , "User Network
Interface (UNI) Requirements and Framework",
MEF 11, November 2004.
[RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Papadimitriou, P., Yasukawa, S.,
Eds, "Extensions to Resource Reservation
Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for
Point-to-Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths
(LSPs)", RFC 4875, May 2007.
8. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Evelyne Roch and Stephen Shew for
their valuable comments.
9. Author's Addresses
Lou Berger
LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Phone: +1-301-468-9228
Email: lberger@labn.net
Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 20]
Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-00.txt November 6, 2007
Dimitri Papadimitriou
Alcatel Lucent
Francis Wellesplein 1,
B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
Phone: +32 3 240-8491
Email: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel-lucent.be
Don Fedyk
Nortel Networks
600 Technology Park Drive
Billerica, MA, 01821
Phone: +1-978-288-3041
Email: dwfedyk@nortel.com
10. Full 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.
11. Intellectual Property
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
Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 21]
Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-00.txt November 6, 2007
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.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 22]
Generated on: Fri Nov 2 09:46:37 EDT 2007
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 05:44:51 |