[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 RFC 3476

Internet Draft                                   Bala Rajagopalan
draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-02.txt           Tellium, Inc.
Expiration : March, 23, 2003

           LDP and RSVP Extensions for Optical UNI Signaling


Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

   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.



Abstract

   The Optical Interworking Forum (OIF) has defined extensions to the
   Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) and the Resource reServation
   Protocol (RSVP) for optical User Network Interface (UNI) signaling.
   These extensions consist of a set of new messages and data objects.
   This document describes these extensions.

1. Introduction

   The OIF UNI signaling specification is described in [8]. This
   specification utilizes IETF protocol standards as well as IETF work
   in progress. Specifically, the following IETF specifications are
   used:

   o    Label distribution protocol (LDP) [6]
   o    Resource reservation protocol (RSVP) [5]
   o    GMPLS signaling and GMPLS extensions for SONET/SDH [4]
   o    GMPLS RSVP-TE and CR-LDP extensions [2, 3]




                                                           Page 1 of 8
              draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-02.txt


   The aim of the OIF UNI specification is the maximal re-use of IETF
   protocol definitions. A few extensions to IETF protocols, however,
   have been defined to serve UNI-specific needs. These extensions are
   described in this document.


2. LDP Extensions for UNI Signaling

   The LDP extensions for UNI signaling consist of two new messages,
   new TLVs that capture UNI-specific parameters and new UNI-specific
   status codes. The new messages are Status Enquiry and Status
   Response. The new TLVs are Source ID (3 TLVs), Destination ID (3
   TLVs), Egress Label, Local Connection ID, Diversity, Contract ID,
   and UNI Service Level [8]. These are described below. The new
   status codes are assigned from the private use space of LDP codes,
   as described in [8].

2.1 Status Enquiry Message

   The encoding for the Status Enquiry Message 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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |U|F|Status Enquiry (0x0420,TBA)|        Length                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   //                  Message Contents                           //
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The contents and usage of this message are described in [8].

2.2  Status Response Message

   The encoding for the Status Response Message 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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |U|F|Status Enquiry (0x0421,TBA)|        Length                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   //                  Message Contents                           //
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The contents and usage of this message are described in [8].

2.3  Source ID TLVs

   Three TLVs are defined for Source ID. These are encoded as:






                          Expires on 3/23/03               Page 2 of 8
              draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-02.txt


    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |U|F|Source ID Type             |      Length                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   ~                      Contents                                 ~
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The three possible Source ID Types are:

   Ipv4:  Type = 0x0960   (TBA)
   Ipv6:  Type = 0x0961   (TBA)
   NSAP:  Type = 0x0962   (TBA)

   The content and usage of these TLVs are described in [8].

2.4  Destination ID TLVs

   Three TLVs are defined for Destination ID. These are encoded as:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |U|F|Dest ID Type             |        Length                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   ~                      Contents                                 ~
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The three possible Dest ID Types are:

   Ipv4:  Type = 0x0963   (TBA)
   Ipv6:  Type = 0x0964   (TBA)
   NSAP:  Type = 0x0965   (TBA)

   The content and usage of these TLVs are described in [8].

2.5  Egress Label TLV

   The Egress Label TLV is encoded as:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |U|F|Egress Label (0x966, TBA)  |        Length                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   ~                      Contents                                 ~
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                          Expires on 3/23/03               Page 3 of 8
              draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-02.txt



   The content and usage of this TLV are described in [8].

2.6  Local Connection ID TLV

   The Local Connection ID TLV is encoded as:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |U|F|Local Conn. ID (0x967, TBA)|        Length                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   ~                      Contents                                 ~
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The content and usage of this TLV are described in [8].

2.7  Diversity TLV

   The Diversity TLV is encoded as:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |U|F|Diversity (0x968, TBA)     |        Length                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   ~                      Contents                                 ~
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The content and usage of this TLV are described in [8].

2.8  Contract ID TLV

   The Contract ID TLV is encoded as:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |U|F|Contract ID (0x969, TBA)   |        Length                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   ~                      Contents                                 ~
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The content and usage of this TLV are described in [8].




                          Expires on 3/23/03               Page 4 of 8
              draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-02.txt


2.9  UNI Service Level TLV

   The UNI Service Level TLV is encoded as:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |U|F|Contract ID (0x970, TBA)   |        Length                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   ~                      Contents                                 ~
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The content and usage of this TLV are described in [8].

3. RSVP Extensions for UNI Signaling

   A single new object class, called "Generalized_UNI" is defined. In
   addition, extension to the RSVP session object and new UNI-specific
   error codes are defined. These are described below.

3.1  Generalized_UNI Object

   The GENERALIZED_UNI object 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 (>8)             | CNum(229, TBA)|  C-Type (1)   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   //                        (Subobjects)                         //
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Subobjects:

   The contents of a GENERALIZED_UNI object are a series of variable-
   length data items.  The common format of the sub-objects is shown
   below:

    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                  |    Type       |  Sub-Type     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   //                             Value                           //
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The following sub-objects are defined. The contents of these sub-
   objects are described in [8]:

   - Source Transport Network Assigned (TNA) Address sub-object:
     Type = 1.  The following sub-types are defined:

                          Expires on 3/23/03               Page 5 of 8
              draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-02.txt


                Ipv4 (Sub-type = 1);
                Ipv6 (Sub-type = 2);
                NSAP (Sub-type = 3).

   - Destination TNA Address sub-object: Type = 2;
          The following sub-types are defined:
                Ipv4 (Sub-type = 1);
                Ipv6 (Sub-type = 2);
                NSAP (Sub-type = 3).

   - Diversity sub-object: Type = 3, Sub-type = 1.
   - Egress label sub-object: Type = 4, Sub-type = 1.
   - Service level sub-object: Type = 5, Sub-type = 1.

3.2  UNI_Ipv4_Session Object

   This object [7] has the following format:

   UNI_ IPv4_SESSION object: Class = 1, C-Type = 11 (TBA)

    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 (16)             | Class-Num(1)  |C-Type (11,TBA)|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                         IPv4 Address                          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |       MUST be zero            |      Tunnel ID                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                   Extended IPv4 Address                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The C-Type value (to be assigned) will distinguish UNI-related RSVP
   Sessions  from other RSVP sessions. The usage of this object is
   described in [8].

3.3  Error Codes

     UNI-specific errors fall under the "Routing Problem" (error code =
     24) [7] and "Policy Control Failure" (error code = 2) [5]
     errors, and they require the assignment of sub-codes. The
     following is the list of errors and proposed assignments of sub-
     codes:

   - Routing Problem: Diversity not available (Error code = 24, sub-
     code = 100)
   - Routing Problem: Service level not available (Error code = 24,
     sub-code = 101)
   - Routing problem: Invalid/Unknown connection ID (Error code = 24,
     sub-code = 102)
   - Policy control failure: Unauthorized sender (Error code = 2, sub-
     code = 100)


                          Expires on 3/23/03               Page 6 of 8
              draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-02.txt


   - Policy control failure: Unauthorized receiver (Error code = 2,
     sub-code = 101)


4. IANA Considerations

   The OIF UNI 1.0 specification defines new messages, objects and
   error codes under LDP and RSVP. Majority of these extensions
   require code point assignments via IETF consensus action.  These are
   summarized below.


4.1 LDP Messages, TLVs and Status Codes

   Proposed message types 0x0420 and 0x0421 as described in Sections
   2.1 and 2.2, respectively.

   Proposed TLV types 0x0960 û 0x0970 as described in Sections 2.3 û
   2.9 above.

   UNI-specific status codes have been allocated out of the Private Use
   space, i.e., 0x3Fxxxxxx. These do not require IANA administration.

4.2  RSVP Object Class and Error Codes

   Proposed Generalized_UNI object class (Section 3.1), Class Number
   229 (TBA). The C-types within this class need not be administered by
   IANA.

   Proposed UNI_Ipv4_Session Object (Class-Num = 1, C-Type = 11 (TBA)),
   as described in Section 3.2.

   UNI-specific errors fall under the Routing Problem and Policy
   Control Failure errors (error codes 24 and 2). Proposed sub-codes
   under error code 24 are 100, 101 and 102, as described in Section
   3.3. Proposed sub-codes under error code 2 are 100 and 101, as
   described in Section 3.3.

5. Security Considerations

   This document does not introduce any new security considerations.

6. References

   [1] P. Ashwood-Smith, et al., "Generalized MPLS - Signaling
   Functional Description", Internet Draft, Work in Progress.


   [2] P. Ashwood-Smith, et al., "Generalized MPLS û RSVP-
   TE Extensions", Internet Draft, Work in Progress.

   [3] P. Ashwood-Smith, et al., "Generalized MPLS û CR-LDP
   Extensions", Internet Draft, Work in Progress.

   [4] E. Mannie, et al., "GMPLS Extensions for SONET and SDH
   Control," Internet Draft,   Work in Progress.


                          Expires on 3/23/03               Page 7 of 8
              draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-02.txt



   [5] R. Braden, et al, "RSVP Functional Specification", RFC 2205.

   [6] L. Andersson, et al., "LDP Specification", RFC 3036.

   [7] D. Awduche, et al., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
   Tunnels," RFC 3209.

   [8]  UNI 1.0 Signaling Specification, The Optical Internetworking
   Forum, http://www.oiforum.com/public/UNI_1.0_ia.html


7. Author Information

   Bala Rajagopalan
   Tellium, Inc.
   2 Crescent Place
   Ocean Port, NJ 07757
   Ph: +1-732-923-4237
   Email: braja@tellium.com




































                          Expires on 3/23/03               Page 8 of 8


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/