One document matched: draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-01.txt
Differences from draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-00.txt
Internet Draft Lou Berger (LabN)
Category: Standards Track
Expiration Date: May 6, 2008 Don Fedyk (Nortel)
November 6, 2007
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support For Metro Ethernet Forum
and G.8011 User-Network Interface (UNI)
draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-01.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 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). This document is the UNI companion to "Generalized MPLS
(GMPLS) Extensions For Ethernet Services". 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-01.txt November 6, 2007
Contents
1 Introduction .............................................. 3
1.1 Overview .................................................. 4
1.2 Conventions used in this document ......................... 5
2 Common Signaling Support .................................. 5
2.1 UNI Addressing ............................................ 5
2.2 Ethernet Endpoint (UNI) Identification .................... 6
2.2.1 Address Resolution ........................................ 6
2.3 Connection Identification ................................. 7
3 EPL Service ............................................... 7
4 EVPL Service .............................................. 7
4.1 Egress VLAN ID Control and VLAN ID preservation ........... 7
5 IANA Considerations ....................................... 8
5.1 Error Value: Routing Problem/Unknown Endpoint ............. 8
6 Security Considerations ................................... 8
7 References ................................................ 8
7.1 Normative References ...................................... 8
7.2 Informative References .................................... 9
8 Acknowledgments ........................................... 10
9 Author's Addresses ........................................ 10
10 Full Copyright Statement .................................. 10
11 Intellectual Property ..................................... 11
Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 2]
Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-01.txt November 6, 2007
Authors' Note:
Please note that the service specific portions of the -00 version of
this document have been moved to draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs.
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 GMPLS Extensions For
Ethernet Services defined in [GMPLS-ESVCS].
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
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 technology that supports overlay UNI services.
Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 3]
Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-01.txt November 6, 2007
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 [GMPLS-ESVCS], [RFC4208], and [RFC4974].
Support for P2P and MP2MP service is required by [G.8011] and
[MEF11]. P2P service delivery support is based on the GMPLS support
for Ethernet Services covered in [GMPLS-ESVCS]. As with [GMPLS-
ESVCS], 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
Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 4]
Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-01.txt November 6, 2007
managed via a signaling interface. As with [GMPLS-ESVCS] this
document is aimed at supporting the MEF UNI Type 3 mode of operation.
As mentioned above this document is limited to covering UNI specific
topics.
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.
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 a UNI
reference point for the services Ethernet Services described in
[GMPLS-ESVCS].
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, notably
[GMPLS-ESVCS] 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 [RFC4974] and as
modified below in Section 2.2.1.
Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 5]
Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-01.txt November 6, 2007
2.2. Ethernet Endpoint (UNI) Identification
UNI identification, except as noted below, MUST follow Ethernet
endpoint (UNI) identification as defined in [GMPLS-ESVCS]. There is
one additional case that is covered in this document where the scope
of the Ethernet endpoint identifier is relevant beyond the typical
case of just ingress and egress nodes.
2.2.1. Address Resolution
At the UNI reference point, 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 [RFC4974]
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
[RFC4974]. 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 [RFC4974]. 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
standard processing defined in [RFC4974]. The downstream nodes will
then process the Notify according to standard processing rules.
When the ingress receives the response Notify message, it SHOULD
Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 6]
Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-01.txt November 6, 2007
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.
2.3. Connection Identification
With one exception, UNI signaling for Ethernet connections MUST
follows the Connection Identification procedures defined in [GMPLS-
ESVCS]. The exception is that the procedures defined in Section 7.2
of [RFC4974] MAY be used to provide support for allocation of Call
IDs by the first core-node rather than by the initiating edge-node.
3. EPL Service
There are no additional UNI specific requirements for signaling an
Ethernet Private Line (EPL) services. The procedures defined in
[GMPLS-ESVCS], as modified above, MUST be followed to when signaling
an EPL Service.
4. EVPL Service
There is one additional UNI specific requirements for signaling an
EVPL type service. Except as modified above and by this section, the
procedures defined in [GMPLS-ESVCS] MUST be followed when signaling
an EVPL Service.
4.1. 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 [GMPLS-ESVCS].
As is the case in [GMPLS-ESVCS], when the explicit label control
mechanism is not used VLAN IDs MUST be preserved, i.e., not modified,
Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 7]
Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-01.txt November 6, 2007
across the LSP.
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. 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.
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-ESVCS] Berger, L., Papadimitriou, P., Fedyk, D.,
"Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support For Metro Ethernet
Forum and G.8011 Ethernet Services", Work in
Progress, draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-00.txt,
November 2007.
Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 8]
Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-01.txt November 6, 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.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling - Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions",
RFC 3473, January 2003.
[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.
[RFC4974] Papadimitriou, D., Farrel, A. "Generalized MPLS
(GMPLS) RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in support of Calls",
RFC 4974, August 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.
[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.
Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 9]
Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-01.txt November 6, 2007
[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.
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
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
Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 10]
Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-01.txt November 6, 2007
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 11]
Generated on: Fri Nov 2 09:46:20 EDT 2007
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 11:26:42 |