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

Versions: (draft-li-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 RFC 6898

Network Working Group                                          Dan Li
Internet Draft                                                 Huawei
Updates: 4204, 4207, 4209, 5818                         D. Ceccarelli
Category: Standards Track                                    Ericsson
                                                           Lou Berger
                                                                 LabN


Expires: August 2013                                 February 8, 2013



             Link Management Protocol Behavior Negotiation and
                       Configuration Modifications


             draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-11.txt


Abstract

   The Link Management Protocol (LMP) is used to coordinate the
   properties, use, and faults of data links in Generalized
   Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS)-controlled networks. This
   document defines an extension to LMP to negotiate capabilities and
   indicate support for LMP extensions. The defined extension is
   compatible with non-supporting implementations.

   This document updates RFC 4204, RFC 4207, RFC 4209 and RFC 5818.

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



Li. et al.               Expires August 2013               [Page 1]

draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-11.txt           February 2013


   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 5, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 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
   Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
   warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
   10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
   the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
   not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.

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 ................................................ 3
   2. LMP Message Modifications.................................... 4
      2.1. Modified Message Formats................................ 4
      2.2. Processing ............................................. 5
   3. LMP Behavior Negotiation..................................... 6
      3.1. BehaviorConfig C-Type Format............................ 6
      3.2. Processing ............................................. 7
   4. Backward Compatibility....................................... 7
   5. Security Considerations...................................... 8


Li. et al.               Expires August 2013               [Page 2]

draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-11.txt           February 2013


   6. IANA Considerations ......................................... 9
      6.1. New LMP Class Type...................................... 9
      6.2. New Capabilities Registry............................... 9
   7. Contributors ............................................... 10
   8. Acknowledgments ............................................ 10
   9. References ................................................. 10
      9.1. Normative References................................... 10
   10. Authors' Addresses ........................................ 11

1. Introduction

   The Link Management Protocol (LMP) [RFC4204] has been successfully
   deployed in Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS)-
   controlled networks.

   New LMP behaviors and protocol extensions have been introduced in a
   number of IETF documents as set out later in this section. It is
   likely that future extensions will be made to support additional
   functions.

   In a network, if one LMP-capable node supports a new behavior or
   protocol extension but its adjacent node does not, it is beneficial
   to have a protocol mechanism to discover the capabilities of peer
   nodes so that the right protocol extensions can be selected and the
   correct features can be enabled. There are no such procedures
   defined in the base LMP specification [RFC4204]. [RFC4209] defined a
   specific mechanism to identify support for the functions specified
   in that document. This document defines an LMP extension to support
   the identification of supported LMP functions in a generic fashion,
   as well as how a node supporting these extensions would communicate
   with legacy nodes.

   In [RFC4204], the basic behaviors have been defined around the use
   of the standard LMP messages, which include Config, Hello, Verify,
   Test, LinkSummary, and ChannelStatus. Per [RFC4204], these behaviors
   MUST be supported when LMP is implemented, and the message types
   from 1 to 20 have been assigned by IANA for these messages. Support
   for all functions required by [RFC4204] is assumed by this document.

   In [RFC4207], the SONET/SDH technology-specific behavior and
   information for LMP is defined. The Trace behavior is added to LMP,
   and the message types from 21 to 31 were assigned by IANA for the
   messages that provide the TRACE function.

   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



Li. et al.               Expires August 2013               [Page 3]

draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-11.txt           February 2013


   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,
   and the message types from 32 to 34 have been assigned by IANA for
   messages that provide this behavior.

   It is likely that future extensions to LMP for other functions or
   technologies will require the definition of further LMP messages.

   This document describes an LMP extension, which is referred to as
   behavior negotiation, which enables nodes at the ends of a link to
   identify the LMP messages and functions supported by the adjacent
   node. The extension makes use of a new CONFIG object. The use of
   this new object does not preclude the use of existing or yet to be
   defined CONFIG object.

   This document also modifies the format of messages that carry CONFIG
   object to allow for multiple objects. Multiple CONFIG objects allow
   behavior negotiation concurrent with existing usage of the CONFIG
   object, i.e., HelloConfig C-Type defined in [RFC4204] and
   LMP_WDM_CONFIG C-Type defined in [RFC4209]. This document modifies
   the ConfigAck message to include CONFIG objects so that acceptable
   parameters are explicitly identified.  It also describes how a node
   which supports the extensions defined in this document interacts
   with a legacy LMP-capable node.

2. LMP Message Modifications

   LMP Config, ConfigNack and ConfigAck messages are modified by this
   document to allow for the inclusion of multiple CONFIG objects. The
   Config and ConfigNack messages were only defined to carry one CONFIG
   object in [RFC4204]. The ConfigAck message, which was defined
   without carrying any CONFIG objects in [RFC4204], is modified to
   enable explicit identification of negotiated configuration
   parameters. The inclusion of CONFIG objects in ConfigAck messages is
   triggered by the use of the BehaviorConfig object (defined below) in
   a received Config message.

   The message formats in the sections that follow use Backus-Naur Form
   (BNF) encoding as defined in [RFC5511].

2.1. Modified Message Formats






Li. et al.               Expires August 2013               [Page 4]

draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-11.txt           February 2013


   The format of the Config message as updated by this document is as
   follows:

   <Config Message> ::= <Common Header> <LOCAL_CCID> <MESSAGE_ID>
                        <LOCAL_NODE_ID> <CONFIG> [ <CONFIG> ... ]

   The format of the ConfigAck message as updated by this document is
   as follows:

   <ConfigAck Message> ::= <Common Header> <LOCAL_CCID> <LOCAL_NODE_ID>
                           <REMOTE_CCID> <MESSAGE_ID_ACK>
                           <REMOTE_NODE_ID>[ <CONFIG> ... ]

   The format of the ConfigNack message as updated by this document is
   as follows:

   <ConfigNack Message> ::= <Common Header> <LOCAL_CCID>
                            <LOCAL_NODE_ID>  <REMOTE_CCID>
                            <MESSAGE_ID_ACK> <REMOTE_NODE_ID>
                            <CONFIG> [ <CONFIG> ... ]

2.2. Processing

   Nodes that support the extensions defined in this document MAY
   include multiple CONFIG objects when sending a Config, ConfigAck and
   ConfigNack message. A maximum of a single object of any particular
   C-type SHALL be included. A node which receives a message with
   multiple CONFIG objects of the same C-type SHALL process the first
   object of a particular C-type and ignore any subsequent CONFIG
   objects of the same C-type. Unless specified as part of the CONFIG
   object definition, ordering of CONFIG objects with different C-type
   values is not significant.

   Nodes that support the extensions defined in this document MUST
   include a BehaviorConfig type object when sending a Config message
   to a neighbor whose support for the extensions is either known or
   unknown. When the neighbor is known to not support the extensions,
   the object MUST NOT be sent. Inclusion of other CONFIG objects in a
   Config message is at the discretion of the message sender, and is
   based on the rules defined as part of CONFIG object definition.
   Nodes MAY include HelloConfig, LMP_WDM_CONFIG, BehaviorConfig object
   types in a single message.

   Inclusion of multiple CONFIG objects in a ConfigNack message is
   based on the processing of a received Config message. Per [RFC4204]
   "Parameters where agreement was reached MUST NOT be included in the
   ConfigNack Message." As such, a ConfigNack message MUST NOT include


Li. et al.               Expires August 2013               [Page 5]

draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-11.txt           February 2013


   CONFIG objects which are acceptable and MUST include any CONFIG
   objects which are not acceptable. When a CONFIG object is included
   in a ConfigNack message, per [RFC4204], the object is to include
   "acceptable alternate values for negotiable parameters".

   When sending a ConfigAck message, nodes supporting the extensions
   defined in this document MUST include all CONFIG objects received in
   the corresponding Config message when that message includes a CONFIG
   object of type BehaviorConfig.

3. LMP Behavior Negotiation

   The Config message is used in the control channel negotiation phase
   of LMP [RFC4204]. The LMP behavior negotiation procedure is defined
   in this document as an addition to 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].

   Two class types have been defined:

   - C-Type = 1, HelloConfig, defined in [RFC4204]

   - C-Type = 2, LMP_WDM_CONFIG, defined in [RFC4209]

   This document defines a third C-Type to report and negotiate LMP
   mechanisms and behaviors. Its usage indicates support for the
   extensions defined in this document.

3.1. BehaviorConfig C-Type Format

   Class = 6

   - C-Type = (To be assigned by IANA), BehaviorConfig

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |S|D|C|                   Must Be Zero (MBZ)                    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   Flags:





Li. et al.               Expires August 2013               [Page 6]

draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-11.txt           February 2013


     S: 1 bit

      This bit indicates support for the Trace behavior of SONET/SDH
      technology-specific defined in [RFC4207].

     D: 1 bit

      This bit indicates support for the DWDM behavior defined in
      [RFC4209].

     C: 1 bit

      This bit indicates support for the data channel consistency check
      behavior defined in [RFC5818].

     Must Be Zero (MBZ): Variable length

      The remaining bits in the flags field MUST be set to zero (0).
      This field MUST be sized to ensure 32 bit alignment of the object.

      Other bits may be defined in future documents, in which case the
      number of bits in MBZ field is expected to change.

3.2. Processing

   The inclusion of a BehaviorConfig type object in a message is
   discussed above in Section 2.2.

   When sending a BehaviorConfig type object, the N-bit (negotiable) in
   the LMP object header MUST be set (N=1) in the LMP object header.

   When sending a BehaviorConfig type object in Config and ConfigNack
   messages, the flags field SHOULD be set based on the supported
   capabilities of the sending node. When sending a ConfigAck message,
   the flags field MUST be set to the value received in the
   corresponding Config message.

   When receiving a BehaviorConfig type object, the node compares the
   flags field against its capacities.  Any bit set in the MBZ portion
   of the flags field MUST be interpreted as unacceptable. Processing
   related to unacceptable values in CONFIG objects is defined in
   [RFC4204] and is not modified by this document.

4. Backward Compatibility

   The required use of the BehaviorConfig type CONFIG object enables
   nodes which support the extensions defined in this document to


Li. et al.               Expires August 2013               [Page 7]

draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-11.txt           February 2013


   explicitly identify when a neighboring node does not. When a non-
   supporting node receives a Config message with the BehaviorConfig
   type CONFIG object or multiple CONFIG objects its behavior is to be
   one of the following behaviors:

   a) Reject the Config message because of the unknown BehaviorConfig
      object type and send a ConfigNack message which includes the
      unsupported C-type.

   b) Reject the message because of multiple CONFIG objects and send a
      ConfigNack message which includes all but one of the CONFIG
      objects.

   c) Silently ignore the one or more of the CONFIG object, and respond
      with a ConfigAck message that does not include any CONFIG objects.

   d) Treat the message as malformed, and discard it without any
      response.

   Behaviors (a) and (b) result in ConfigNack messages with a
   BehaviorConfig type object whose contents are identical to what was
   sent in the Config message. Behavior (c) results in a ConfigAck
   message without a BehaviorConfig type CONFIG object. In each of
   these cases, the node SHOULD explicitly identify that the LMP
   neighbor does not support the extensions defined in this document.

   Behavior (d) results in no response at all. When the node reaches
   the, [RFC4204]-defined, "retry limit", the node SHOULD infer that
   the LMP neighbor does not support the extensions defined in this
   document.

   Once a node identifies a neighbor as not supporting the extensions
   defined in this document, the node SHOULD follow previously defined
   Config message usage.

5. 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 procedures described in this document do 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



Li. et al.               Expires August 2013               [Page 8]

draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-11.txt           February 2013


   operate protocol extensions, and so the use of the LMP security
   measures are RECOMMENDED.

   Note, however that [RFC4204] references for security have been
   updated with [RFC4301] and the current reference for IKEv2 is
   [RFC5996].

6. IANA Considerations

6.1. New LMP Class Type

   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(suggested)  BehaviorConfig        [This.I-D]

6.2. New Capabilities Registry

   IANA is requested to create a new subregistry of the "Link
   Management Protocol (LMP)" registry to track the Behavior
   Configuration bits defined in Section 2 of this document. It is
   suggested that this registry be called "LMP Behavior Configuration
   Flags".

   Allocations from this registry are by Standards Action.

   Bits in this registry are numbered from zero as the most significant
   bit (transmitted first). The number of bits that can be present is
   limited by the length field of the CONFIG object which gives rise to
   (255 x 32)-8 = 8152. IANA is strongly recommended to allocate new
   bits with the lowest available unused number.

   The registry is initially populated as follows:






Li. et al.               Expires August 2013               [Page 9]

draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-11.txt           February 2013


   Bit    | Bit  | Meaning                                | Reference
   Number | Name |                                        |
   -------+------+----------------------------------------+----------
     0    |   S  | SONET/SDH Test support                 | [This.ID]
     1    |   D  | DWDM support                           | [This.ID]
     2    |   C  | Data Channel consistency check support | [This.ID]


7. Contributors

   Diego Caviglia
   Ericsson
   Via A. Negrone 1/A 16153
   Genoa Italy
   Phone: +39 010 600 3736
   Email: diego.caviglia@ericsson.com


8. Acknowledgments

   Thanks to Adrian Farrel and Richard Graveman for their useful
   comments.



9. References

9.1. Normative References

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

   [RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
             Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005

   [RFC5996] C. Kaufman, P. Hoffman, Y. Nir, P. Eronen, "Internet Key
             Exchange Protocol: IKEv2", RFC 5996, September 2010.

   [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.




Li. et al.               Expires August 2013               [Page 10]

draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-11.txt           February 2013


   [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.

   [RFC5511] Farrel, A., Ed., "Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF): A
             Syntax Used to Form Encoding Rules in Various Routing
             Protocol Specifications", RFC 5511, April 2009.

10. Authors' Addresses

      Dan Li
      Huawei Technologies
      F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Industrial Base,
      Shenzhen 518129 China
      Phone: +86 755-289-70230
      Email: huawei.danli@huawei.com

      Daniele Ceccarelli
      Ericsson
      Via A. Negrone 1/A
      Genova - Sestri Ponente
      Italy
      Email: daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com

      Lou Berger
      LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
      Email: lberger@labn.net


















Li. et al.               Expires August 2013               [Page 11]


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