One document matched: draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-00.txt
Network Working Group Dan Li
Internet Draft Huawei
Updates: RFC4204 D. Ceccarelli
Category: Standards Track Ericsson
Expires: April 2011 October 8, 2010
Behavior Negotiation in Link Management Protocol
draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-00.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with
the provisions of BCP 78 and 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
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 8, 2011.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
Li. et al. Expires April 2011 [Page 1]
draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-00.txt October 2010
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Abstract
The Link Management Protocol (LMP) is used to coordinate the
properties, use, and faults of data links in Generalized
Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) networks. Various proposals
have been advanced to provide extensions to the base LMP
specification. This document provides a generic procedure for LMP
implementations that do not recognize or do not support any one of
these extensions.
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].
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................ 2
2. LMP Behavior Negotiation Procedure........................... 3
3. Security Considerations...................................... 6
4. IANA Considerations ......................................... 6
5. Contributors ................................................ 6
6. Acknowledgments ............................................. 7
7. References .................................................. 7
7.1. Normative References.................................... 7
7.2. Informative References.................................. 7
8. Authors' Address ............................................ 8
1. Introduction
The Link Management Protocol (LMP) [RFC4204] is being successfully
deployed in Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
networks in the field. New LMP behaviors and protocol extensions are
being introduced in a number of IETF documents.
In the network, if one GMPLS Label Switching Router (LSR) supports a
new behavior or protocol extension, but its peer LSR does not, it is
necessary to have a protocol mechanism for resolving issues that may
arise. It is also beneficial to have a protocol mechanism to
discover the capabilities of peer LSRs. There is no such procedure
defined in the base LMP specification [RFC4204], so this document
Li. et al. Expires April 2011 [Page 2]
draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-00.txt October 2010
defines how to handle LMP extensions both at legacy LSRs and at
upgraded LSRs that communicate with legacy LSRs.
In [RFC4204], the basic behaviors have been defined around the use
of the standard LMP message, which includes Config, Hello, Verify,
Test, LinkSummary, ChannelStatus. Per [RCF4204], these behaviors
MUST be supported when the LMP is implemented, and the message types
from 1 to 20 are used for these behaviors.
In [RFC4207], the SONET/SDH technology-specific information for LMP
is defined. The TRACE behavior is added to LMP, and the message
types from 21 to 31 were defined for the TRACE function. The TRACE
function has been extended for the support of OTNs (Optical
Transport Networks) in [LMP TEST].
In [RFC4209], extensions to LMP are defined to allow it to be used
between a peer node and an adjacent optical line system (OLS). The
LMP object class type and sub-object class name have been extended
to support DWDM behavior.
In [RFC5818], the data channel consistency check behavior is defined,
the message types from 32 to 34 are used for this behavior.
This document describes the behavior negotiation procedure to make
sure both LSRs of each link understand the LMP messages being
exchanged between peers.
2. LMP Behavior Negotiation Procedure
The Config message is used in the control channel negotiation phase
of LMP [RC4204]. The LMP behavior negotiation procedure is defined
in this document as an addition at this phase.
The Config message is defined in Section 12.3.1 of [RFC4204] and
carries the <CONFIG> object (class name 6) as defined in Section
13.6 of [RFC4204]. Multiple <CONFIG> objects (each with a different
Class Type) MAY be present on a Config message in which case all of
the objects MUST be processed.
Two class types have been defined:
- C-Type = 1, HelloConfig, defined in [RFC4204]
- C-Type = 2, LMP_WDM_CONFIG, defined in [RFC4209]
Li. et al. Expires April 2011 [Page 3]
draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-00.txt October 2010
This document defines a third C-Type with value 3 (TBD by IANA) to
report and negotiate new and future LMP extensions and behaviors.
- C-Type = 3, ENHANCED_BEHAVIOR_CONFIG
Two different types of flag are defined in this object: Architecture
Flags and Capability Flags. The first set of flags indicates the
network architecture supported by the node (e.g. OTN, SDH/SONET,
DWDM), while the second one all the optional capabilities supported
by the protocol implementation (e.g. Link Verification, Fault
Management). The existing RFCs define the following capabilities:
- Control Channel Management (Mandatory)
- Link Property Correlation (Mandatory)
- Link Verification (Optional)
- Fault Management (Optional)
- Trace Monitoring (Optional)
- Data Channel Status Confirmation (Optional)
Due to the fact that Control Channel Management and Link Property
Correlation are mandatory capabilities, no capability flag is
defined for their configuration. When an architecture flag is set,
automatically these two capabilities are implicitly supported. With
respect to the other ones, a flag for each of them is defined.
The format of the new type of CONFIG Class is defined 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved |M|O|W|S| Reserved |D|T|F|V|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|<----- Architecture Flags ---->|<----- Capability Flags ----->|
Architecture Flags:
S: 1 bit
This bit indicates support for the SONET/SDH.
W: 1 bit
Li. et al. Expires April 2011 [Page 4]
draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-00.txt October 2010
This bit indicates support for WDM.
O: 1 bit
This bit indicates support for OTN.
M: 1 bit
This bit indicates support for MPLS-TP
Capability Flags:
V: 1 bit
This bit indicates support for the Link Verification capability
defined in [RFC4204].
F: 1 bit
This bit indicates support for the Fault Management capability
defined in [RFC4204].
T: 1 bit
This bit indicates support for the Trace Monitoring defined in
[RFC4204], [RFC4207] and [LMP TEST].
D: 1 bit
This bit indicates support for the Data Channel Status Confirmation
messages defined in [RFC5818].
Further bits may be defined in future documents.
The Reserved field MUST be sent as zero and MUST NOT be ignored on
receipt. This allows the detection of supported/unsupported LMP
behaviors.
Upon receiving a bit set related to a non supported behavior, a
ConfigNack message MUST be sent with a <CONFIG> object representing
the supported LMP behaviors.
An LSR that receives a Config message containing a <CONFIG> object
with a C-Type that it does not recognize MUST respond with a
ConfigNack message as described in [RFC4204]. Thus, legacy LMP nodes
that do not support the ENHANCED_BEHAVIOR_CONFIG C-Type defined in
this document will respond with a ConfigNack message.
Li. et al. Expires April 2011 [Page 5]
draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-00.txt October 2010
3. Security Considerations
[RFC4204] describes how LMP messages between peers can be secured,
and these measures are equally applicable to messages carrying the
new <CONFIG> object defined in this document.
The operation of the procedures described in this document does not
of itself constitute a security risk since they do not cause any
change in network state. It would be possible, if the messages were
intercepted or spoofed to cause bogus alerts in the management plane,
or to cause LMP peers to consider that they could or could not
operate protocol extensions, and so the use of the LMP security
measures are RECOMMENDED.
4. IANA Considerations
IANA maintains the "Link Management Protocol (LMP)" registry which
has a subregistry called "LMP Object Class name space and Class type
(C-Type)".
IANA is requested to make an assignment from this registry as
follows:
6 CONFIG [RFC4204]
CONFIG Object Class type name space:
C-Type Description Reference
------ ------------------------ ---------
3 ENHANCED_BEHAVIOR_CONFIG [This.I-D]
5. Contributors
Diego Caviglia
Ericsson
Via A. Negrone 1/A 16153
Genoa Italy
Phone: +39 010 600 3736
Email: diego.caviglia@ericsson.com
Li. et al. Expires April 2011 [Page 6]
draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-00.txt October 2010
6. Acknowledgments
Thanks to Adrian Farrel and Lou Berger for their useful comments.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4204] J. Lang, Ed., "Link Management Protocol (LMP)", RFC 4204,
October 2005.
[RFC4207] J. Lang, Ed., "Synchronous Optical Network (SONET)/
Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Encoding for Link
Management Protocol (LMP) Test Messages", RFC 4207,
October 2005.
[RFC4209] A. Fredette, Ed., "Link Management Protocol (LMP) for
Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) Optical Line
Systems", RFC 4209, October 2005.
[RFC5818] D. Li, Ed., "Data Channel Status Confirmation Extensions
for the Link Management Protocol", RFC 5818, April 2010.
7.2. Informative References
[LMP TEST] D. Ceccarelli, Ed., "Link Management Protocol (LMP) Test
Messages Extensions for Evolutive Optical Transport
Networks (OTN)" draft-ceccarelli-ccamp-gmpls-g709-lmp-
test-02.txt, May, 2010.
Li. et al. Expires April 2011 [Page 7]
draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-00.txt October 2010
8. Authors' Address
Dan Li
Huawei Technologies
F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Industrial Base,
Shenzhen 518129 China
Phone: +86 755-289-70230
Email: danli@huawei.com
Daniele Ceccarelli
Ericsson
Via A. Negrone 1/A
Genova - Sestri Ponente
Italy
Email: daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com
Li. et al. Expires April 2011 [Page 8]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 01:26:38 |