One document matched: draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-00.txt
Internet Draft Lou Berger (LabN)
Updates: 3471, 3473, 3945
Category: Standards Track Don Fedyk (Nortel)
Expiration Date: December 29, 2007
June 29, 2007
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support For Metro Ethernet Forum
and G.8011 User-Network Interface (UNI)
draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-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 December 29, 2007.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract
This document describes a method for controlling Ethernet transport
connections via a Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
based User-Network Interface (UNI). 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. This document does not define
or limit the underlying intra-domain or Internal NNI (I-NNI)
technology used to support the UNI.
Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 1]
Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-00.txt June 29, 2007
Contents
1 Introduction .............................................. 3
1.1 Overview .................................................. 4
1.2 Conventions used in this document ......................... 6
2 Common Signaling Support .................................. 6
2.1 UNI Addressing ............................................ 6
2.2 Ethernet Endpoint (UNI) Identification .................... 6
2.2.1 Endpoint ID TLV ........................................... 7
2.2.2 Address Resolution ........................................ 8
2.2.3 Notify Message Format ..................................... 9
2.3 Connection Identification ................................. 9
2.3.1 Procedures ................................................ 10
2.4 Traffic Parameters ........................................ 10
2.5 Bundling and VLAN Identification .......................... 11
3 EPL Service ............................................... 11
3.1 Data Channel Switching ................................... 11
3.2 EPL Service Parameters .................................... 12
4 EVPL Service .............................................. 12
4.1 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST Object .............. 13
4.2 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object ...................... 13
4.2.1 EVPL Generalized Label Format ............................. 16
4.3 Other Label related Objects ............................... 16
4.4 Egress VLAN ID Control and VLAN ID preservation ........... 16
4.5 Single Call - Single LSP .................................. 17
4.6 Single Call - Multiple LSPs ............................... 17
5 IANA Considerations ....................................... 17
5.1 Endpoint ID Attributes TLV ................................ 17
5.2 Error Value: Routing Problem/Unknown Endpoint ............. 18
5.3 Data Channel Switching Type ............................... 18
5.4 8B/10B LSP Encoding ....................................... 18
5.5 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST Object .............. 19
5.6 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object ...................... 19
6 Security Considerations ................................... 20
7 References ................................................ 20
7.1 Normative References ...................................... 20
7.2 Informative References .................................... 21
8 Acknowledgments ........................................... 22
9 Contributor's Addresses ................................... 22
10 Full Copyright Statement .................................. 23
11 Intellectual Property ..................................... 23
Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 2]
Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-00.txt June 29, 2007
Open issues:
There are several open issues in this document that will be resolved in
subsequent versions. The issues include:
1. Should a more generic name be used for the new "8B/10B" LSP
Encoding Type.
2. This document assumes that [MEF-TRAFFIC] supports signaling of
desired L2 control protocol processing, but this is not yet
included in [MEF-TRAFFIC].
3. This document should be divided into two documents: one that
defines generic GMPLS support for Ethernet Services and the
new DCSC Switching Type, and one that covers UNI specific
topics.
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
transport services defined in the above documents at the UNI network
reference points. This document does not define or limit the
underlying intra-domain or Internal NNI (I-NNI) technology used to
support the UNI. This document makes use of the traffic parameters
defined in [MEF-TRAFFIC]. The document is intended to be consistent
with [GMPLS-PBBTE] and [GELS-FRAMEWORK].
The scope of this document covers Ethernet UNI applications, and it
is intended to be consistent with the GMPLS overlay model presented
in [RFC4208] and aligned with GMPLS Core Network signaling. The
scope and reference model used in this document are represented in
Figure 1, which is based on Figure 1 of [RFC4208].
Figure 1 shows two core networks, each containing two core-nodes.
The core-nodes are labeled 'CN'. Connected to each CN is an edge-
node. The edge-nodes are labeled 'EN'. Each EN supports Ethernet
Networks and use Ethernet services provided by the core-nodes via a
Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 3]
Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-00.txt June 29, 2007
UNI. Two services are represented, one EPL and EVPL type service.
Signaling within the core network is out of scope of this document
and may include any number of technologies that support the overlay
UNI services.
Ethernet Ethernet
Network UNI +----------+ +-----------+ UNI Network
+---------+ | | | | +---------+
| +----+ | | +-----+ | | +-----+ | | +----+ |
------+ | | EPL | | | | | | | | EPL | | +------
------+ EN +-+-----+--+ CN +---------+ CN +--+-----+-+ EN +------
| | | | +--+--| +---+ | | +--+-----+-+ | |
| +----+ | | | +--+--+ | | | +--+--+ | | +----+ |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
+---------+ | | | | | | | | +---------+
| | | | | | | |
+---------+ | | | | | | | | +---------+
| | | | +--+--+ | | | +--+--+ | | |
| +----+ | | | | | | +-----+ | | | +----+ |
------+ +-+--+ | | CN +---------+ CN | | | | +------
------+ EN +-+-----+--+ | | | | +--+-----+-+ EN +------
| | | |EVPL | +-----+ | | +-----+ |EVPL | | | |
| +----+ | | | | | | +----+ |
| | +----------+ |-----------+ | |
+---------+ Core Network(s) +---------+
Ethernet Ethernet
Network <---------------------------------------> Network
Scope of this Document
Legend: EN - Edge Node
CN - Core Node
Figure 1: Ethernet UNI Reference Model
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], [RFC4208], and [GMPLS-CALLS]. The document
also expands expands the set of existing 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
Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 4]
Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-00.txt June 29, 2007
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 [GMPLS-PBBTE] and [RFC3473], and unidirectional point-to-
multipoint TE LSPs, see [GMPLS-PBBTE] and [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
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 supporting 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 at a UNI. 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 both the local
and remote UNIs. 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:
- UNI endpoint identifiers
- Connection identifiers
- Traffic parameters (see [MEF-TRAFFIC])
- Bundling / VLAN IDs map (EVPL only)
- VLAN ID Preservation (EVPL only)
Common procedures used to signal Ethernet connections are described
in Section 2 of this document. Procedures related to EPL services
are described in Section 3. Procedures related to EVPL services are
described in Section 4.
Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 5]
Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-00.txt June 29, 2007
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].
2. Common Signaling Support
This section describes the common mechanisms for supporting UNI
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] and [RFC4208], MUST be followed in all cases not explicitly
described in this document.
2.1. UNI Addressing
Ethernet connections controlled via the mechanisms defined in this
document MUST use the addressing and other procedures defined in
[RFC4208]. Of note, this includes the use of the egress edge-node's
IP address in the end-point address field in the SESSION object. See
[OIF-MEF-UNI] for an alternate approach.
One issue that presents itself with the addressing approach taken in
[RFC4208] is that an ingress edge-node may not receive the egress
edge-node's IP address as part of the management, or other, request
that results in the initiation of a new Ethernet connection. This
case is covered as described in Section 7.2 of [GMPLS-CALLS] and as
modified below in Section 2.2.2.
2.2. 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 [GMPLS-CALLS], and an LSP attributes object, see
[RFC4420]. The solution makes use of the [GMPLS-CALLS] short call
Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 6]
Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-00.txt June 29, 2007
ID, and supports the Ethernet endpoint identifier much like [GMPLS-
CALLS] 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. (See Section 2.2.2 for the exception
case.)
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 [GMPLS-CALLS]. This processing
requires a change to Notify message format to allow the inclusion of
the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object.
2.2.1. 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).
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].
2.2.1.1. Procedures
The use of the Endpoint ID TLV is required during call management.
When a call is established or torndown per [GMPLS-CALLS], an
Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 7]
Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-00.txt June 29, 2007
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 [GMPLS-CALLS].
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].
2.2.2. Address Resolution
As mentioned above, it is possible for the ingress edge-node to not
have the egress edge-node's IP address when initiating an Ethernet
connection. This presents an issue as the egress edge-node's IP
address is carried in the SESSION object. This case is handled
leveraging the approach described in Section 7.2 of [GMPLS-CALLS] to
address call ID assignment by the first core-node.
When an edge-node initiates an Ethernet Connection and it has the
egress Ethernet endpoint identifier, but does not have its IP
address, the edge-node MUST create a Notify message as described in
[GMPLS-CALLS]. The Notify message MUST include the LSP_ATTRIBUTES
object with the Endpoint ID TLV defined in the prior section. The
tunnel end point address field of the SESSION object in the Notify
message MUST be set to zero (0). The message MUST be addressed and
sent to an address associated with the first core-node.
When a network-node, i.e., the node providing the network side of the
UNI receives a Notify message with the tunnel end point address field
of the SESSION object set to zero, it MUST locate the Endpoint ID TLV
in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object. If the object or TLV are not present,
the node MUST discard the message. In this case, a Message ID
Acknowledgment MUST NOT be sent for the Notify message.
When the Endpoint ID TLV is located, the node MUST map the Endpoint
ID into the egress edge-node's IP address. If the node is unable to
obtain the egress address, it MUST issue an error response Notify
messages according to Section 6.2.2. of [GMPLS-CALLS]. The Error
code and value SHOULD be "Routing Problem/Unknown Endpoint." (To be
assigned by IANA).
When the node is able to obtain the egress address, the end-point
address field of the SESSION object MUST be set to the obtained
address, and the Notify message should be sent according to the
Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 8]
Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-00.txt June 29, 2007
standard processing defined in [GMPLS-CALLS]. The downstream nodes
will then process the Notify according to standard processing rules.
When the ingress receives the response Notify message, it SHOULD
identify the call based on the Endpoint ID TLV and, when not set to
zero on the corresponding setup Notify message, the short and long
Call IDs. The end-point address field of the SESSION object carried
in the response Notify message will include the egress' IP address.
This returned address MUST be used in all subsequent messages
associated with the Ethernet connection.
Note that the procedure described in this section MAY be used when
the Call IDs are generated by the initiating UNI or by the first
core-node.
2.2.3. Notify Message Format
The Notify message format is extended based on the format defined in
[GMPLS-CALLS] to allow for the use of the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object as
defined in this document. The LSP_ATTRIBUTES object MUST be present
when the UNI defined in this document is supported, and SHOULD follow
the SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object.
The format of the Notify Message is updated as follows:
<Notify message> ::= see [GMPLS-CALLS]
<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]
2.3. Connection Identification
UNI signaling for Ethernet connections follows the procedures defined
in [GMPLS-CALLS]. In particular the Call related mechanisms are
reused to support UNI endpoint identification. In the context of
Ethernet connections, a call only exists when one or more LSPs
(connections in [GMPLS-CALLS] terms) are present. An LSP will always
be established within the context of a call and, typically, only one
Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 9]
Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-00.txt June 29, 2007
LSP will be used per call. See Section 4 for the case where more
than one LSP may exist within a call.
2.3.1. Procedures
Ethernet connections established according to this document MUST
treat the Ethernet (virtual) connection identifier as the long "Call
identifier (ID)", described in [GMPLS-CALLS]. The short Call ID MUST
be used as described in [GMPLS-CALLS]. 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 [GMPLS-CALLS]. Any
node that supports Ethernet connections MUST be able to accept and
process call setups per [GMPLS-CALLS].
Once a Call is established, the initiator SHOULD establish at least
one Ethernet LSP per [GMPLS-CALLS]. LSP management, including
removal and addition, then follows [GMPLS-CALLS]. When the last LSP
associated with a Call is removed, the Call SHOULD be torndown per
the procedures in [GMPLS-CALLS].
Note, the procedures defined in Section 7.2 of [GMPLS-CALLS] provide
support for allocation of Call IDs by the first core-node rather than
by the initiating edge-node.
2.4. 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
[Note: Modification to MEF-TRAFFIC under discussion]
Ethernet connections established according to this document MUST use
the traffic parameters defined in [MEF-TRAFFIC] in the FLOWSPEC and
TSPEC objects.
Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 10]
Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-00.txt June 29, 2007
2.5. 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.
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 (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 8B/10B encoded
interfaces. Framed interfaces may also be included when they support
switching on an interface granularity.
Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 11]
Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-00.txt June 29, 2007
DCSC is represented in signaling, see [RFC3471], 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.
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 8B/10B* (TBA by IANA)
(*) Note: type name may change in a subsequent version of
this draft.
The other LSP parameters specific to EPL Service are:
Parameter Value
-------------- -----
Switching Type DCSC (See 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]. An EVPL allows for multiple Ethernet connections per UNI,
each of which supports a specific set of VLAN IDs. The UNI 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.
Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 12]
Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-00.txt June 29, 2007
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)
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 use
a single call, see Section 2.3, and multiple LSPs. 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 13]
Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-00.txt June 29, 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 14]
Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-00.txt June 29, 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 Sub-Objects MUST be used. A
value of zero (0) has special meaning and MUST ONLY be used in
the UPSTREAM_LABEL object.
A value of zero (0) is used in an UPSTREAM_LABEL object to
indicate that the subchannel(s) used in the upstream direction
MUST match the subchannel(s) carried in the 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.
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.
For LSPs supporting EVPL service, the Label Type field MUST be set to
indicate a generalized label (2).
Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 15]
Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-00.txt June 29, 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. These bits SHOULD be pass
through 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 are 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 ingress UNI
to a different VLAN ID 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 [RFC4208], and not the mechanism define
in [RFC3473] and clarified in [RFC4003].
Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 16]
Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-00.txt June 29, 2007
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 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.
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:
Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 17]
Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-00.txt June 29, 2007
Allowed on Allowed on
Type Name LSP_ATTRIBUTES LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Reference
---- ----------- -------------- ----------------------- ---------
2* Endpoint ID Yes Yes [This document]
(*) Suggested value.
5.2. Error Value: Routing Problem/Unknown Endpoint
Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the assignment in
the "Error Codes and Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes" section
of the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters:
Error Code Meaning
24 Routing Problem [RFC3209]
This Error Code has the following globally-defined Error
Value sub-codes:
28* = Unknown Endpoint [This document]
(*) Suggested value.
5.3. 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.
5.4. 8B/10B 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:
Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 18]
Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-00.txt June 29, 2007
Value Type Reference
----- --------------------------- ---------
14* 8B/10B [This document]
(*) Suggested value.
5.5. 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.
5.6. 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.
Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 19]
Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-00.txt June 29, 2007
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.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[GMPLS-CALLS] Papadimitriou, D., Farrel, A. "Generalized MPLS
(GMPLS) RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions",
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-call, Work in
progress, January 2007.
[MEF-TRAFFIC] Papadimitriou, D., "MEF Ethernet Traffic
Parameters,"
draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-traffic-parameters-02.txt,
Work in progress, June 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.
Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 20]
Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-00.txt June 29, 2007
[RFC4208] Swallow, G., et al. "Generalized Multiprotocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) User-Network Interface (UNI): Resource
ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE) Support for the Overlay Model", RFC 4208,
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.
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.
[GELS-FRAMEWORK] Papadimitriou, P., et al "A Framework for
GMPLS-controlled Ethernet Label Switching", Work
in progress, February 2006.
[GMPLS-PBBTE] Fedyk, D., et al "GMPLS control of Ethernet" ,
draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-01.txt, Work in
progress, June 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.
[OIF-MEF-UNI] Optical Internetworking Forum, "Proposed
Implementation Guide for use of OIF UNI signaling
to support MEF UNI Type 3", oif2006.281.04,
April 2007.
Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 21]
Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-00.txt June 29, 2007
[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.
[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. Contributor's Addresses
Lou Berger
LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Phone: +1-301-468-9228
Email: lberger@labn.net
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
Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 22]
Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-00.txt June 29, 2007
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
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 23]
Generated on: Fri Jun 29 14:02:42 EDT 2007
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 01:45:51 |