One document matched: draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-traffic-parameters-03.txt
Differences from draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-traffic-parameters-02.txt
Network Working Group Dimitri Papadimitriou
Internet Draft
Category: Standards Track
Expires: April 2008 November 2007
Ethernet Traffic Parameters
draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-traffic-parameters-03.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
For potential updates to the above required-text see:
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 2008.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
D.Papadimitriou Expires April 2008 [Page 1]
Ethernet Traffic Parameters Nov. 2007
Abstract
This document described the Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) - specific
Ethernet Traffic Parameters as described in MEF10.1 when using
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Resource
ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) signaling.
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 RFC-2119 [1].
Moreover, the reader is assumed to be familiar with the terminology
MEF10 as well as [RFC3471] and [RFC3473].
1. Introduction
Per [RFC3471], GMPLS allows the inclusion of technology specific
parameters in signaling. Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC and FLOWSPEC specific
objects are introduced in this document that describes Metro Ethernet
Forum (MEF) Ethernet traffic parameters as specified in [MEF10.1].
These traffic parameters MUST be used when L2SC is specified in the
LSP Switching Type field of a Generalized Label Request (see
[RFC3471]) and the LSP encoding type is Ethernet.
For Ethernet Private Line (EPL) services [MEF6], these traffic
parameters are applicable non-discriminately to all EVCs crossing a
given port.
For Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) services [MEF6], these
traffic parameters are applicable per Ethernet Virtual Connection
(EVC) with single or multiple Class of Service (CoS), independently
of its associated (set of) VLAN ID (VID).
Association between EVC and VIDs is detailed in [MEF10.1]. The format
and encoding of the (set of) VIDs are documented in a companion
document [GMPLS-ESVCS].
2. Overview
The Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC/FLOWSPEC object includes the Ethernet link
type (switching granularity) of the requested LSP, and the MTU value
for the LSP.
D.Papadimitriou Expires April 2008 [Page 2]
Ethernet Traffic Parameters Nov. 2007
Bandwidth Profile defines the set of traffic parameters applicable to
a sequence of Service Frames, referred to as bandwidth profile
parameters:
- Committed Rate: indicates the rate at which traffic commits to
be sent to the Ethernet LSP. The Committed Rate is described in
terms of the CIR (Committed Information Rate) and CBS (Committed
Burst Size) traffic parameters.
CIR is defined as the average rate (in bytes per unit of time)
up to which the network is committed to transfer frames and
meets its performance objectives.
CBS defines a limit on the maximum number of information units
(e.g. bytes) available for a burst of frames sent at the
interface speed to remain CIR-conformant.
- Excess Rate: indicates the extent by which the traffic sent on a
Ethernet LSP exceeds the committed rate. The Excess Rate is
described in terms of the EIR (Excess Information Rate) and EBS
(Excess Burst Size) traffic parameters.
EIR is defined as the average rate (in bytes per unit of time),
in excess of the CIR, up to which the network may transfer
frames without any performance objectives.
EBS defines a limit on the maximum number of information units
(e.g. bytes) available for a burst of frames sent at the
interface speed to remain EIR-conformant.
- The color mode (CM) parameter indicates whether the "color-
aware" or "color-blind" property is employed by the bandwidth
profile.
- The coupling flag (CF) parameter allows the choice between two
modes of operations of the rate enforcement algorithm.
3. Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object
The Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object (Class-Num = 12, Class-Type = TBA by
IANA) has the following format:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | Class-Num (12)| C-Type (6) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Switching Granularity | MTU |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
D.Papadimitriou Expires April 2008 [Page 3]
Ethernet Traffic Parameters Nov. 2007
| |
~ TLVs ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Switching Granularity (SG): 16 bits
This field indicates the type of link that comprises the
requested Ethernet LSP.
The permitted Ethernet Link Type values:
Value Switching Granularity
----- ---------------------
1 Ethernet Port (for port-based service)
2 Ethernet Frame (for EVC-based service)
Value 0 is reserved. Values 1 through 127 are assigned by IANA via
IETF Standards Track RFC action.
Values 128 through 255 are reserved for vendor specific usage.
MTU: 16 bits
This is a two-octet value indicating the MTU in octets.
The MTU MUST NOT take a value smaller than 46 bytes for Ethernet
v2 and 38 bytes for IEEE 802.3.
TLV:
The Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object MUST include at least one TLV
and MAY include more than one TLV.
Each TLV has the following format (in accordance to [RFC4420]):
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 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Value ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: 16 bits
D.Papadimitriou Expires April 2008 [Page 4]
Ethernet Traffic Parameters Nov. 2007
Defined values are:
Type Length Format Description
--------------------------------------------------
1 TBD Reserved Reserved
2 20 see Section 3.1 Ethernet Bandwidth
Profile [MEF10.1]
3 4 [GMPLS-ESVCS] Layer 2 Control
Processing (L2CP)
Value 0 and 255 are reserved.
Values 1 through 239 are assigned by IANA via IETF Standards
Track RFC Action.
Values 240 through 254 are reserved for vendor specific
usage.
Length: 16 bits
Indicates the value length of the TLV, i.e., the length of
the value field in octets. A value field whose length is not
a multiple of four MUST be zero-padded (with trailing zeros)
so that the TLV is four-octet aligned.
3.1 Ethernet Bandwidth Profile TLV
The Type 2 TLV indicates the Ethernet Bandwidth Profile. It defines
an upper bound on the volume of the expected service frames belonging
to a particular Ethernet service instance. The Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC
object MAY include more than one Ethernet Bandwidth Profile TLV.
The Type 2 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Profile | Index | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| CIR |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| CBS |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| EIR |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| EBS |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Profile: 8 bits (this field is to be registered by IANA)
D.Papadimitriou Expires April 2008 [Page 5]
Ethernet Traffic Parameters Nov. 2007
This field is defined as a vector of binary flags. The following
flags are defined:
Flag 1 (bit 0): coupling flag (CF)
Flag 2 (bit 1): color mode (CM)
Where bit 0 is the low order bit. Other flags are reserved,
they SHOULD be set to zero when sent, and SHOULD be ignored when
received.
A flag is set to one to indicate that the corresponding metering
is requested.
The Flag 1 allows the choice between two modes of operations of
the rate enforcement algorithm.
The Flag 2 indicates whether the color-aware or color-blind
property is employed by the bandwidth profile. When Flag 2 is set
to 0 (1), the bandwidth profile algorithm is said to be in
color blind (color aware) mode.
Index: 8 bits
The index field is used to reference bandwidth allocated for a
given traffic class in case a multiple-class LSP is being
requested. The index field value MUST correspond to at least one
of the index value included in the extended ClassType object ([DS-
TE], [MCOS]).
A given index value j can be associated to at most N Class-Type
values CTi (i =< N) of the extended Class-Type object. This
applies in case a set of one or more CTi maps a single BW profile
(shared). An example of value setting consists then in assigning
an arbitrary value (between 0x10 and 0x77) associated to set of
CTi.
As a particular case, a given index value j can be associated to a
single CTi (1:1 correspondence). An example of index value setting
consists then in allocating the CTi value to the index field
itself (i.e. 0x00,...,0x07). This applies in case a single CTi
maps a single BW profile or multiple BW profiles (dedicated). In
the former case (single BW profile), the Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC
object includes a single Ethernet Bandwidth Profile TLV. In the
second case, the Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC includes a set of more than
one Ethernet Bandwidth Profile TLVs (whose respective index value
is associated to a single CTi value).
Note that the current specification allow for combining shared and
D.Papadimitriou Expires April 2008 [Page 6]
Ethernet Traffic Parameters Nov. 2007
dedicated BW profiles to the same LSP. That is, an Ethernet
SENDER_TSPEC MAY include multiple Ethernet Bandwidth Profile TLVs
whose respective index can be associated on a 1:1 basis to a
single CTi or to a set of multiple CTi.
For each subobject of the extended Class-Type object [MCOS]:
- each CTi value SHOULD correspond 1:1 to MEF CE VLAN-CoS
- the BW requested per CTi field MAY be used for bandwidth
accounting purposes.
By default, the value of the index field MUST be set to 0.
Reserved: 16 bits
These bits SHOULD be set to zero when sent and MUST be ignored
when received.
CIR (Committed Information Rate): 32 bits
The value of the CIR is in units of bytes per second. The CIR is
encoded as a 32-bit IEEE single-precision floating-point number
(see [RFC1832]).
The CIR value MUST be greater than or equal to 0.
CBS (Committed Burst Size): 32 bits
The value of the CBS is in units of bytes. The CBS is encoded
as a 32-bit IEEE single-precision floating-point number (see
[RFC1832]).
When CIR is strictly greater than 0 (CIR > 0), the CBS MUST be
greater than or equal to the maximum frame size.
EIR (Excess Information Rate): 32 bits
The value of the EIR is in units of bytes per second. The EIR
is encoded as a 32-bit IEEE single-precision floating-point
number (see [RFC1832]).
The EIR value MUST be greater than or equal to 0.
EBS (Excess Burst Size): 32 bits
The value of the EBS is in units of bytes. The EBS is encoded
as a 32-bit IEEE single-precision floating-point number (see
[RFC1832]).
D.Papadimitriou Expires April 2008 [Page 7]
Ethernet Traffic Parameters Nov. 2007
When EIR is strictly greater than 0 (EIR > 0), the EBS MUST be
greater than or equal to the maximum frame size.
4. Ethernet FLOWSPEC format
The Ethernet FLOWSPEC object (Class-Num = 12, Class-Type = TBA by
IANA) has the same format as the Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object.
5. ADSPEC considerations
There is no ADSPEC associated with the Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object.
Either the ADSPEC is omitted or an Int-serv ADSPEC with the Default
General Characterization Parameters and Guaranteed Service fragment
is used, see [RFC2210].
6. Processing
The Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object carries the traffic specification
generated by the RSVP session sender. The Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC
object SHOULD be forwarded and delivered unchanged to both
intermediate and egress nodes.
The Ethernet FLOWSPEC object carries reservation request information
generated by receivers. As with any FLOWSPEC object, Ethernet
FLOWSPEC object flows upstream toward the ingress node.
Intermediate and egress nodes MUST verify that the node itself and
the interfaces on which the LSP will be established can support the
requested Switching Granularity, MTU and values included in sub-
object TLVs. If the requested value(s) can not be supported, the
receiver node MUST generate a PathErr message with the error code
"Traffic Control Error" and the error value "Service unsupported"
(see [RFC2205]).
In addition, if the MTU field is received with a value smaller than
the minimum transfer unit size of the Ethernet frame (e.g. 46 bytes
for Ethernet v2, 38 bytes for IEEE 802.3), the node MUST generate a
PathErr message with the error code "Traffic Control Error" and the
error value "Bad Tspec value" (see [RFC2205]).
Error processing of the Extended Class-Type object follows rules
defined in [MCOS]. Moreover, an LSR receiving a Path message with the
Extended Class-Type object, which recognizes the object and the
particular Class-Type but does detect a mismatch in the index values,
MUST send a PathErr towards the sender with the error code "Extended
Class-Type Error" and the error value "Class-Type mismatch" (see
[RFC2205]).
D.Papadimitriou Expires April 2008 [Page 8]
Ethernet Traffic Parameters Nov. 2007
7. Security Considerations
This document introduces no new security considerations to either
[RFC3473].
GMPLS security is described in section 11 of [RFC3471] and refers to
[RFC3209] for RSVP-TE.
8. IANA Considerations
Two values have been defined by IANA for this document:
Two RSVP C-Types in registry:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters
- An Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object: Class = 12, C-Type = TBA (see
Section 3).
- An Ethernet FLOWSPEC object: Class = 9, C-Type = TBA (see
Section 4).
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[GMPLS-ESVCS] Berger, L., et al., "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support
For Metro Ethernet Forum and G.8011 Ethernet
Services", draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-00.txt,
Internet-draft, Work in progress, November 2007.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2205] Braden, R., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) --
Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205,
September 1997.
[RFC2210] Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated
Services", RFC 2210, September 1997.
[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.
D.Papadimitriou Expires April 2008 [Page 9]
Ethernet Traffic Parameters Nov. 2007
[RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description",
RFC 3471, January 2003.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions",
RFC 3473, January 2003.
9.2. Informative References
[MEF10.1] The MEF Technical Specification, "Ethernet Services
Attributes Phase 2", MEF 10.1, November 2006.
[MEF6] The Metro Ethernet Forum, "Ethernet Services
Definitions - Phase I", MEF 6, June 2004.
[MEF11] The Metro Ethernet Forum , "User Network
Interface (UNI) Requirements and Framework",
MEF 11, November 2004.
[MCOS] I.Minei et al., "Extensions for Differentiated
Services-aware Traffic Engineered LSPs", draft-minei-
diffserv-te-multi-class, Work in progress, June 2006.
10. Acknowledgments
Many thanks to Adrian Farrel for his comments. Lou Berger provided
the input on control traffic processing.
11. Author's Addresses
Dimitri Papadimitriou
Alcatel
Copernicuslaan 50
B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
Phone: +32 3 2408491
E-mail: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel-lucent.be
D.Papadimitriou Expires April 2008 [Page 10]
Ethernet Traffic Parameters Nov. 2007
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.
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.
D.Papadimitriou Expires April 2008 [Page 11]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 00:15:20 |