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

Versions: (draft-shiomoto-ccamp-gmpls-addressing) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 RFC 4990

CCAMP Working Group                                Kohei Shiomoto (NTT)
Internet Draft                                  Rajiv Papneja (ISOCORE)
Expires: November 2005                         Richard Rabbat (Fujitsu)

                                                               May 2005

       Addressing and Messaging in Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
                        Switching (GMPLS) Networks

                 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-addressing-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/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.


Abstract

   This document explains and clarifies addressing and messaging in
   Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) networks.  The aim
   of this document is to facilitate and ensure better interworking of
   GMPLS-capable Label Switching Routers (LSR) based on experience
   gained in deployments and interoperability testing and proper
   interpretation of published RFCs.

   The document recommends a proper approach for the interpretation and
   choice of address and identifier fields within GMPLS protocols and
   references specific control plane usage models.  It also examines
   some common GMPLS Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering


                        Expires November 2005                [Page 1]

                 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-addressing-00         May 2005


   (RSVP-TE) signaling message processing issues and recommends
   solutions.


Table of Contents

   1. Introduction...................................................3
   2. Conventions Used in This Document..............................3
   3. Terminology....................................................3
   4. Numbered Addressing............................................4
   4.1. Interior Gateway Protocols...................................5
   4.1.1. Router Address.............................................6
   4.1.2. Link ID sub-TLV............................................6
   4.1.3. Local Interface IP Address.................................6
   4.1.4. Remote Interface IP Address................................6
   4.2. Use of Addresses in RSVP-TE..................................6
   4.2.1. IP Tunnel End Point Address in Session Object..............6
   4.2.2. IP Tunnel Sender Address in Sender Template Object.........7
   4.2.3. IF_ID RSVP_HOP Object for Numbered Interfaces..............7
   4.2.4. Explicit Route Object (ERO)................................7
   4.2.5. Record Route Object (RRO)..................................8
   4.3. IP Packet Destination Address................................8
   4.4. IP Packet Source Address.....................................8
   5. Unnumbered Addressing..........................................8
   5.1. IGP..........................................................9
   5.1.1. Link Local/Remote Identifiers in OSPF-TE...................9
   5.1.2. Link Local/Remote Identifiers in IS-IS/TE..................9
   5.2. Use of Addresses in RSVP-TE..................................9
   5.2.1. IF_ID RSVP_HOP Object for Unnumbered Interfaces............9
   5.2.2. Explicit Route Object (ERO)...............................10
   5.3. Record Route Object (RRO)...................................10
   5.4. LSP_Tunnel Interface ID Object..............................10
   6. RSVP-TE Message Content.......................................10
   6.1. ERO and RRO Addresses.......................................10
   6.1.1. Strict Subobject in ERO...................................10
   6.1.2. Loose Subobject in ERO....................................11
   6.1.3. RRO.......................................................12
   6.2. Forwarding Destination of Path Message with ERO.............12
   7. GMPLS Control Plane...........................................12
   7.1. Control Channel Separation..................................12
   7.2. Native and Tunneled Control Plane...........................13
   7.3. Separation of Control and Data Plane Traffic................13
   8. Security Considerations.......................................13
   9. Full Copyright Statement......................................13
   10. Intellectual Property........................................14
   11. Acknowledgement..............................................14
   12. Authors' Addresses...........................................15
   13. Contributors.................................................15

                         Expires October 2005                   [Page 2]

                 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-addressing-00         May 2005


   14. References...................................................16
   14.1. Normative References.......................................16
   14.2. Informative References.....................................17


   Changes from draft-shiomoto-ccamp-gmpls-addressing-01:

   - Updated boilerplate

   - Removed non-ASCII characters

   - Ran idnits and updated accordingly


1. Introduction

   This document describes explains and clarifies addressing and
   messaging in networks that use GMPLS [RFC3945] as their control
   plane. For the purposes of this document it is assumed that there is
   a one-to-one correspondence between control plane and data plane
   entities.  That is, each data plane switch has a unique control plane
   presence responsible for participating in the GMPLS protocols, and
   that each such control plane presence is responsible for a single
   data plane switch.  The combination of control plane and data plane
   entities is referred to as a Label Switching Router (LSR). Various
   more complex deployment scenarios can be constructed, but these are
   out of scope of this document.

   Comments are solicited and should be addressed to the working group's
   mailing list at ccamp@ops.ietf.org and/or the author(s).


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 RFC 2119, reference
   [RFC2119].


3. Terminology

   Note that the term 'Router ID' is used in two contexts within GMPLS.
   It may refer to an identifier for a participant in a routing
   protocol, or it may be an identifier for an LSR that participates in
   TE routing. These could be considered as the control plane and data
   plane contexts.


                         Expires October 2005                   [Page 3]

                 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-addressing-00         May 2005


   In this document, the contexts are distinguished by the following
   definitions.

   Loopback address - A loopback address is a stable IP address of the
   advertising router that is always reachable if there is any IP
   connectivity to it [RFC3630].  Thus, for example, an IPv4 127/24
   address is excluded from this definition.

   TE Router ID - A stable IP address of an LSR that is always reachable
   if there is any IP connectivity to the LSR, e.g., a loopback address.
   The most important requirement is that the address does not become
   unusable if an interface on the LSR is down [RFC3477].

   Router ID - The OSPF protocol version 2 [RFC2328] defines the Router
   ID to be a 32-bit network unique number assigned to each router
   running OSPF.  IS-IS [RFC1195] includes a similar concept in the
   System ID. This document describes both concepts as the "Router ID"
   of the router running the routing protocol.  The Router ID is not
   required to be a reachable IP address, although an operator MAY set
   it to a reachable IP address on the same system.

   TE link - "A TE link is a representation in the IS-IS/OSPF Link State
   advertisements and in the link state database of certain physical
   resources, and their properties, between two GMPLS nodes." [RFC3945]

   Data plane node - A vertex on the TE graph.  It is a data plane
   switch or router.  Data plane nodes are connected by TE links which
   are constructed from physical data links.  A data plane node is
   controlled through some combination of management and control plane
   actions.  A data plane node may be under full or partial control of a
   control plane node.

   Control plane node - A GMPLS protocol speaker.  It may be part of a
   data plane switch or may be a separate computer.  Control plane nodes
   are connected by control channels which are logical connectionless or
   connection-oriented paths in the control plane.  A control plane node
   is responsible for controlling zero, one or more data plane nodes.

   Interface ID - The Interface ID is defined in [RFC3477] and in
   section 9.1 of [RFC3471].


4. Numbered Addressing

   When numbered addressing is used, addresses are assigned to each node
   and link in both control and data planes in GMPLS networks.  A TE
   Router ID is defined to identify the LSR for TE purposes.  It is a


                         Expires October 2005                   [Page 4]

                 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-addressing-00         May 2005


   requirement stated in [RFC3477] that the TE Router ID MUST be a
   reachable address in the control plane.

   The reason why the TE Router ID must be a reachable IP address is
   because in GMPLS, control and data plane names /addresses are not
   completely separated.  An Explicit Route Object (ERO) signaled as a
   part of a Label Switched Path (LSP) setup message contains an LSP
   path specified in data plane addresses, namely TE Router IDs and TE
   link IDs.  The message needs to be forwarded as IP/RSVP packet
   between LSRs that manage data plane nodes along the path.  Hence,
   each LSR along the path needs to resolve the next hop data plane
   address into the next hop control plane address before the message
   could be forwarded to the next hop.  Generally speaking there is a
   need for a module/protocol that discovers and manages control plane/
   data plane address bindings for the address spaces to be completely
   separated.  In this case, the TE Router ID could be just a network
   unique number.  Mandating that TE Router ID be a reachable IP address
   eliminates the need of the above mentioned module - the next hop data
   plane TE Router ID could be used as a destination for IP packets
   encapsulating the LSP setup (RSVP Path) message.  Note that every TE
   link ID could always be resolved to the link originating TE Router
   ID.

   An IP address MAY also be assigned to each physical interface
   connected to the control plane network.  Both numbered and unnumbered
   links in the control plane MAY be supported.  The control channels
   are advertised by the routing protocol as normal links, which allows
   the routing of RSVP-TE and other control messages between the LSRs
   over the control plane network.

   A physical interface address or a physical interface identifier is
   assigned to each physical interface connected to the data plane. An
   interface address or an interface identifier is logically assigned to
   each TE-link end associated with the physical data channel in the
   GMPLS domain.  A TE link may be installed as a logical interface.

   A numbered link is identified by a network unique identifier (e.g.,
   an IP address) and an unnumbered link is identified by the
   combination of TE Router ID and a node-unique Interface ID. The
   existence of both numbered and unnumbered links in the data plane
   SHOULD be accepted. The recommended addressing for the numbered and
   unnumbered links is also suggested in this document.

4.1. Interior Gateway Protocols

   We address in this section unnumbered addressing using two Interior
   Gateway Protocols (IGPs) that have extensions defined for GMPLS:
   OSPF-TE and IS-IS/TE [RFC3784].

                         Expires October 2005                   [Page 5]

                 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-addressing-00         May 2005



4.1.1. Router Address

   The Router Address is advertised in OSPF-TE using the Router Address
   TLV structure [RFC3630].

   It is referred to as the Addressing Router that is advertised in IS-
   IS [RFC1195].

   The IGP protocols use this as a means to advertise the TE Router ID.
   The TE Router ID is used in constrained-based path computation.

4.1.2. Link ID sub-TLV

   The Link ID sub-TLV [RFC3630] advertises the Router ID of the remote
   end of the TE link.  For point-to-point links, this is the Router ID
   of the neighbor.  Multi-access links are left for further study.

   Note that there is no correspondence in IS-IS to the Link ID sub-TLV
   in OSPF-TE.

4.1.3. Local Interface IP Address

   The Local Interface IP Address is advertised in:
   - the Local Interface IP Address sub-TLV in OSPF-TE
   - the IPv4 Interface Address sub-TLV in IS-IS/TE

   This is the ID of the local end of the numbered TE link.  It MUST be
   a network unique number.

4.1.4. Remote Interface IP Address

   The Remote Interface IP Address is advertised in:
   - the Remote Interface IP Address sub-TLV in OSPF-TE
   - the IPv4 Neighbor Address sub-TLV in IS-IS/TE

   This is the ID of the remote end of the numbered TE link.  It MUST be
   a network unique number.

4.2. Use of Addresses in RSVP-TE

4.2.1. IP Tunnel End Point Address in Session Object

   The IP tunnel end point address of the Session Object is either an
   IPv4 or IPv6 address.




                         Expires October 2005                   [Page 6]

                 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-addressing-00         May 2005


   It is RECOMMENDED that the IP tunnel endpoint address in the Session
   Object [RFC3209] be set to the TE Router ID of the egress since the
   TE Router ID is a unique routable ID per node.

   Alternatively, the tunnel end point address MAY also be set to the
   destination data plane address if the ingress knows that address or
   the TE Router ID.

4.2.2. IP Tunnel Sender Address in Sender Template Object

   The IP tunnel sender address of the Sender Template Object is also
   either an IPv4 or IPv6 address.

   It is RECOMMENDED that the IP tunnel sender address in the Sender
   Template Object [RFC3209] specifies the TE Router ID of the ingress
   since the TE Router ID is a unique routable ID per node.

   Alternatively, the tunnel sender address MAY also be set to the
   sender data plane address or the TE Router ID.

4.2.3. IF_ID RSVP_HOP Object for Numbered Interfaces

   1. IPv4/IPv6 Next/Previous Hop Address: the IPv4/IPv6 Next/Previous
      Hop Address [RFC3473] in the Path and Resv messages specifies the
      IP reachable address of the control plane interface used to send
      those messages, or the TE Router ID of the node that is sending
      those messages.

   2. IPv4/IPv6 address in Value Field of the Interface_ID TLV: In both
      the Path and Resv messages, the IPv4/IPv6 address in the value
      field of TLV [RFC3471] specifies the associated data plane local
      interface address of the downstream data channel belonging to the
      node sending the Path message and receiving the Resv message.  In
      the case of bi-directional LSPs, if the interface upstream is
      different from that downstream, then another TLV including the
      local interface address of the upstream data channel belonging to
      the node sending the Path message and receiving the Resv message
      MAY be also added to the TLV for downstream.  Note that
      identifiers of both downstream and upstream data channels are
      specified in each TLV from the viewpoint of the sender of the
      Path message, in both the sent Path and received Resv messages.

4.2.4. Explicit Route Object (ERO)

   The IPv4/IPv6 address in the ERO provides a data-plane identifier of
   an abstract node, TE node or TE link to be part of the signaled LSP.

   We describe in section 6 the choice of addresses in the ERO.

                         Expires October 2005                   [Page 7]

                 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-addressing-00         May 2005



4.2.5. Record Route Object (RRO)

   The IPv4/IPv6 address in the RRO provides a data-plane identifier of
   either a TE node or TE link that is part of the established LSP.

   We describe in section 6 the choice of addresses in the RRO.

4.3. IP Packet Destination Address

   The IP destination address of the packet that carries the RSVP-TE
   message is a control-plane reachable address of the next hop or
   previous hop node along the LSP.  It is RECOMMENDED that a stable
   control plane IP address of the next/previous hop node be used as an
   IP destination address in RSVP-TE message.

   A Path message is sent to the next hop node.  It is RECOMMENDED that
   the TE router ID of the next hop node be used as an IP destination
   address in the packet that carries the RSVP-TE message.

   A Resv message is sent to the previous hop node.  It is RECOMMENDED
   that the IP destination of a Resv message be any of the following:
   - The IP source address of the received IP packet containing the
     Path message,
   - A stable IP address of the previous node (found out by consulting
     the TED and referencing the upstream data plane interface,
   - The value in the received phop field.

4.4. IP Packet Source Address

   The IP source address of the packet that carries the RSVP-TE message
   MUST be a reachable address of the node sending the RSVP-TE message.
   It is RECOMMENDED that a stable IP address of the node be used as an
   IP source address of the IP packet.  In case the IP source address of
   the received IP packet containing the Path message is used as the IP
   destination address of the Resv message, setting a stable IP address
   in the Path message is beneficial for reliable control-plane
   transmission.  This allows for robustness when one of control-plane
   interfaces is down.


5. Unnumbered Addressing

   In this section, we describe unnumbered addressing used in GMPLS to
   refer to different objects and their significance.  Unnumbered
   addressing is supported for a data plane.



                         Expires October 2005                   [Page 8]

                 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-addressing-00         May 2005


5.1. IGP

   Since GMPLS caters to PSC and non-PSC links, a few enhancements have
   been made to the existing OSPF-TE and ISIS-TE protocols.  The routing
   enhancements for GMPLS are defined in [GMPLS-RTG], [RFC3784] and
   [GMPLS-OSPF].

5.1.1. Link Local/Remote Identifiers in OSPF-TE

   Link Local/Remote Identifiers advertise IDs of an unnumbered TE
   link's local and remote ends respectively.  Those are numbers unique
   within the scopes of the advertising LSR and the LSR managing the
   remote end of the link respectively.  Note that these numbers are not
   network unique and therefore could not be used as TE link end
   addresses on their own.  An unnumbered TE link end address is
   comprised of a Router ID associated with the link local end, followed
   by the link local identifier [GMPLS-OSPF].

5.1.2. Link Local/Remote Identifiers in IS-IS/TE

   Link local/remote identifiers in IS-IS/TE are exchanged in the
   Extended Local Circuit ID field of the "Point-to-Point Three-Way
   Adjacency" [RFC3373] IS-IS Option type.  The same discussion in 5.1.1
   applies here.

5.2. Use of Addresses in RSVP-TE

   An unnumbered address used for data plane identification consists of
   the TE router ID and the associated interface ID.

5.2.1. IF_ID RSVP_HOP Object for Unnumbered Interfaces

   The interface ID field in the IF_INDEX TLV specifies the interface of
   the data channel for that unnumbered interface.

   In both the Path message and the Resv message, the value of the
   interface ID in the IF_INDEX TLV specifies the associated local
   interface ID of the downstream data channel belonging to the node
   sending the Path message and receiving the Resv message.  In case of
   bi-directional LSPs, if the interface upstream is different from that
   downstream, then another IF_INDEX TLV including the local interface
   ID of the upstream data channel belonging to the node sending the
   Path message and receiving the Resv message MAY be also added to the
   IF_INDEX TLV for downstream.  Note that identifiers of both
   downstream and upstream data channels are specified in each IF_INDEX
   TLV from the viewpoint of the sender of the Path message, in both
   sent Path and received Resv messages.


                         Expires October 2005                   [Page 9]

                 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-addressing-00         May 2005


5.2.2. Explicit Route Object (ERO)

   For unnumbered interfaces in the ERO, the interface ID is either the
   incoming or outgoing interface of the TE-link w/r to the GMPLS-
   capable LSR.

   We describe in section 6 the choice of addresses in the ERO.

5.3. Record Route Object (RRO)

   For unnumbered interfaces in the RRO, the interface ID is either the
   incoming or outgoing interface of the TE-link w/r to the GMPLS-
   capable LSR.

   We describe in section 6 the choice of addresses in the RRO.

5.4. LSP_Tunnel Interface ID Object

   The LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID Object includes the LSR's Router ID and
   Interface ID as described in [RFC3477] to specify an unnumbered
   Forward Adjacency Interface ID. The Router ID of the GMPLS-capable
   LSR MUST be set to the TE router ID.


6. RSVP-TE Message Content

6.1. ERO and RRO Addresses

6.1.1. Strict Subobject in ERO

   Implementations making limited assumptions about the content of an
   ERO when processing a received Path message may cause
   interoperability issues.

   A subobject in the Explicit Route Object (ERO) includes an address
   specifying an abstract node (i.e., a group of nodes), a simple
   abstract node (i.e., a specific node), or a specific interface of a
   TE-link in the data plane, depending on the level of control required
   [RFC3209].

   In case one subobject is strict, any of the following options are
   valid:
   1. Address or AS number specifying a group of nodes
   2. TE Router ID
   3. Incoming TE link ID
   4. Outgoing TE link ID optionally followed by one or two Label sub-
     objects


                         Expires October 2005                  [Page 10]

                 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-addressing-00         May 2005


   5. Incoming TE link ID and Outgoing TE link ID optionally followed by
     one or two Label sub-objects
   6. TE Router ID and Outgoing TE link ID optionally followed by one or
     two Label sub-objects
   7. Incoming TE link ID, TE Router ID and Outgoing TE link ID
     optionally followed by one or two Label sub-objects

   The label value that identifies a single unidirectional resource
   between two nodes may be different from the perspective of upstream
   and downstream nodes.  This is typical in the case of fiber
   switching, because the label value is a number indicating the
   port/fiber. This is also possible in case of lambda switching,
   because the label value is a number indicating the lambda, but may
   not be the value directly indicating the wavelength value (e.g., 1550
   nm).

   The value of a label in RSVP-TE object MUST indicate the value from
   the perspective of the sender of the object/TLV [RFC3471].  This rule
   MUST be applied to all types of object/TLV.

   Therefore, the label field in the Label ERO subobject MUST include
   the value of the label for the upstream node's identification of the
   resource.

6.1.2. Loose Subobject in ERO

   There are two differences between Loose and Strict subobject.

   A subobject marked as a loose hop in an ERO MUST NOT be followed by a
   subobject indicating a label value [RFC3473].

   A subobject marked as a loose hop in an ERO SHOULD never include an
   identifier (i.e., address or ID) of outgoing interface.

   There is no way to specify in the ERO whether a subobject is
   associated with the incoming or outgoing TE link.  This is
   unfortunate because the address specified in a loose subobject is
   used as a target for the path computation, and there is a big
   difference for the path selection process whether the intention is to
   reach the target node over the specified link (the case of incoming
   TE link) or to reach the node over some other link, so that it would
   be possible to continue the path to its final destination over the
   specified link (the case of outgoing TE link).

   In the case where a subobject in an ERO is marked as a loose hop and
   identifies an interface, the subobject SHOULD include the address of
   the Incoming interface specifying the TE-link in the data plane.


                         Expires October 2005                  [Page 11]

                 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-addressing-00         May 2005


6.1.3. RRO

   When a node adds one or more subobjects to an RRO and sends the Path
   or the Resv message including the RRO for the purpose of recording
   the node's addresses used for an LSP, the subobjects (i.e. number,
   each type, and each content) added by the node SHOULD be the same in
   the Path ERO and Resv ERO.  The intention is that they report the
   path of the LSP, and that the operator can use the results
   consistently.  At any transit node, it SHOULD be possible to
   construct the path of the LSP by joining together the RRO from the
   Path and the Resv messages.

   It is also important that a whole RRO on a received Resv message can
   be used as input to an ERO on a Path message.

   Therefore, in case that a node adds one or more subobjects to an RRO,
   any of the following options are valid:
   1. TE Router ID
   2. Incoming TE link ID
   3. Outgoing TE link ID optionally followed by one or two Label sub-
     objects
   4. Incoming TE link ID and Outgoing TE link ID optionally followed by
     one or two Label sub-objects
   5. TE Router ID and Outgoing TE link ID optionally followed by one or
     two Label sub-objects
   6. Incoming TE link ID, TE Router ID and Outgoing TE link ID
     optionally followed by one or two Label sub-objects

   Option (4) is RECOMMENDED considering the importance of the record
   route information to the operator.

6.2. Forwarding Destination of Path Message with ERO

   The final destination of the Path message is the Egress node that is
   specified by the tunnel end point address in the Session object.
   The Egress node MUST NOT forward the corresponding Path message
   downstream, even if the ERO includes the outgoing interface ID of the
   Egress node for the Egress control [RFC4003].


7. GMPLS Control Plane

7.1. Control Channel Separation

   In GMPLS, a control channel can be separated from the data channel
   and there is not necessarily a one-to-one association of a control
   channel to a data channel. Two adjacent nodes may have multiple IP
   hops between them in the control plane.

                         Expires October 2005                  [Page 12]

                 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-addressing-00         May 2005



   There are two broad types of separated control planes: native and
   tunneled.  These differ primarily in the nature of encapsulation used
   for signaling messages, which also results in slightly different
   address handling with respect to the control plane address.

7.2. Native and Tunneled Control Plane

   It is RECOMMENDED that all implementations support a native control
   plane.

   If the control plane interface is unnumbered, the RECOMMENDED value
   for the control plane address is the TE Router-ID.

   For the case where two adjacent nodes have multiple IP hops between
   them in the control plane, then as stated in section 9 of [RFC3945],
   implementations SHOULD use the mechanisms of section 8.1.1 of [MPLS-
   HIER] whether they use LSP Hierarchy or not.  Note that section 8.1.1
   of [MPLS-HIER] applies for "FA-LSP" as stated in that section but
   also to "TE-LINK" for the case where a normal TE link is used.
   Note also that a hop MUST NOT decrement the TTL of the received RSVP-
   TE message.

   For a tunneled control plane, the inner RSVP and IP messages traverse
   exactly one IP hop.  The IP TTL of the outermost IP header SHOULD be
   the same as for any network message sent on that network.
   Implementations receiving RSVP-TE messages on the tunnel interface
   MUST NOT compare the RSVP TTL to either of the IP TTLs received.
   Implementations MAY set the RSVP TTL to be the same as the IP TTL in
   the innermost IP header.

7.3. Separation of Control and Data Plane Traffic

   Data traffic MUST NOT be transmitted through the control plane.


8. Security Considerations

   In the interoperability testing we conducted, the major issue we
   found was the use of control channels for forwarding data.  This was
   due to the setting of both control and data plane addresses to the
   same value in PSC (Packet-Switching Capable) equipment.  This led to
   major problems that could be avoided simply by keeping the addresses
   for the control and data plane separate.


9. Full Copyright Statement


                         Expires October 2005                  [Page 13]

                 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-addressing-00         May 2005


   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

   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 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.


10. 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.


11. Acknowledgement

   The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel for the helpful
   discussions and the feedback he gave on the document.  We'd also like
   to thank Jonathan Sadler and Hidetsugu Sugiyama for their feedback.




                         Expires October 2005                  [Page 14]

                 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-addressing-00         May 2005


12. Authors' Addresses

   Kohei Shiomoto
   NTT Network Service Systems Laboratories
   3-9-11 Midori
   Musashino, Tokyo 180-8585
   Japan
   Email: shiomoto.kohei@lab.ntt.co.jp

   Rajiv Papneja
   Isocore Corporation
   12359 Sunrise Valley Drive, Suite 100
   Reston, Virginia 20191
   United States of America
   Phone: +1-703-860-9273
   Email: rpapneja@isocore.com

   Richard Rabbat
   Fujitsu Labs of America, Inc.
   1240 East Arques Ave, MS 345
   Sunnyvale, CA 94085
   United States of America
   Phone: +1-408-530-4537
   Email: richard.rabbat@us.fujitsu.com


13. Contributors

   Yumiko Kawashima
   NTT Network Service Systems Lab
   Email: kawashima.yumiko@lab.ntt.co.jp

   Ashok Narayanan
   Cisco Systems
   Email: ashokn@cisco.com

   Eiji Oki
   NTT Network Service Systems Laboratories
   Midori 3-9-11
   Musashino, Tokyo 180-8585, Japan
   Email: oki.eiji@lab.ntt.co.jp

   Lyndon Ong
   Ciena Corporation
   Email: lyong@ciena.com

   Vijay Pandian
   Sycamore Networks

                         Expires October 2005                  [Page 15]

                 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-addressing-00         May 2005


   Email: Vijay.Pandian@sycamorenet.com

   Hari Rakotoranto
   Cisco Systems
   Email: hrakotor@cisco.com


14. References

14.1. Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels," BCP 14, IETF RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2328]   Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2," RFC 2328, April 1998.

   [RFC3209]  Awduche, D., et al, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
              Tunnels," RFC 3209, December 2001.

   [RFC3471]  Berger, L., ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
              Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description," RFC
              3471, January 2003.

   [RFC3473]  Berger, L., ed. "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
              Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation
              Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions," RFC
              3473, January 2003.

   [RFC3477]  Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "Signalling Unnumbered Links
              in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering
              (RSVP-TE)," RFC 3477, January 2003.

   [RFC3630]  Katz, D., Kompella, K. et al., "Traffic Engineering (TE)
              Extensions to OSPF Version 2," RFC 3630, September 2003.

   [RFC3667]  Bradner, S., "IETF Rights in Contributions", BCP 78, IETF
              RFC 3667, February 2004.

   [RFC3668]  Bradner, S., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
              Technology", BCP 79, IETF RFC 3668, February 2004.

   [RFC3945]  Mannie, E., ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
              Switching (GMPLS) Architecture," RFC 3945, October 2004.

   [RFC4003]  Berger, L., "GMPLS Signaling Procedure for Egress
              Control," RFC 4003, February 2005.



                         Expires October 2005                  [Page 16]

                 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-addressing-00         May 2005


   [GMPLS-OSPF] K. Kompella, Y. Rekhter (Eds.), "OSPF Extensions in
              Support of Generalized Multi-protocol Label Switching,"
              work in progress, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-gmpls-
              extensions-12.txt, October 2003.

   [GMPLS-RTG] K. Kompella, Y. Rekhter (Eds.), "Routing Extensions in
              Support of Generalized Multi-protocol Label Switching,"
              draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-09.txt, October 2003.

   [MPLS-HIER] Kompella, K. and Rekhter, Y., "LSP Hierarchy with
              Generalized MPLS TE," work in progress, draft-ietf-mpls-
              lsp-hierarchy-08.txt, March 2002.

14.2. Informative References

   [RFC1195]  Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for Routing in TCP/IP and
              Dual Environments," RFC 1195, December 1990.

   [RFC3373]  Katz, D. and R. Saluja, "Three-Way Handshake for
              Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Point-
              to-Point Adjacencies," RFC 3373, September 2002.

   [RFC3784]  Smit, H. and T. Li, "Intermediate System to Intermediate
              System (IS-IS) Extensions for Traffic Engineering (TE),"
              RFC 3784, June 2004.
























                         Expires October 2005                  [Page 17]


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