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

Versions: (draft-fbb-mpls-tp-data-plane) 00 01 02 03 04 RFC 5960

MPLS                                                       D. Frost, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                            S. Bryant, Ed.
Intended status: Standards Track                           Cisco Systems
Expires: October 24, 2010                                  M. Bocci, Ed.
                                                          Alcatel-Lucent
                                                          April 22, 2010


             MPLS Transport Profile Data Plane Architecture
                    draft-ietf-mpls-tp-data-plane-02

Abstract

   The Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Transport Profile (MPLS-TP)
   is the set of MPLS protocol functions applicable to the construction
   and operation of packet-switched transport networks.  This document
   specifies the subset of these functions that comprises the MPLS-TP
   data plane: the architectural layer concerned with the encapsulation
   and forwarding of packets within an MPLS-TP network.

   This document is a product of a joint Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF) / International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication
   Standardization Sector (ITU-T) effort to include an MPLS Transport
   Profile within the IETF MPLS and PWE3 architectures to support the
   capabilities and functionalities of a packet transport network.

Requirements Language

   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 [RFC2119].

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on October 24, 2010.



Frost, et al.           Expires October 24, 2010                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft       MPLS-TP Data Plane Architecture          April 2010


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


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1.  Scope  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  MPLS-TP Packet Encapsulation and Forwarding  . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  MPLS-TP Transport Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.1.  Label Switched Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       3.1.1.  LSP Packet Encapsulation and Forwarding  . . . . . . .  5
       3.1.2.  LSP Payloads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       3.1.3.  LSP Types  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.2.  Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.3.  Pseudowires  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   4.  MPLS-TP Generic Associated Channel . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   5.  Server Layer Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14














Frost, et al.           Expires October 24, 2010                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft       MPLS-TP Data Plane Architecture          April 2010


1.  Introduction

   The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-framework] is
   the set of functions that meet the requirements [RFC5654] for the
   application of MPLS to the construction and operation of packet-
   switched transport networks.  MPLS-based packet transport networks
   are defined and described in [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-framework].

   This document defines the set of functions that comprise the MPLS-TP
   data plane: the architectural layer concerned with the encapsulation
   and forwarding of packets within an MPLS-TP network.  This layer is
   based on the data plane architectures for MPLS ([RFC3031] and
   [RFC3032]) and for pseudowires ([RFC3985]).

   This document is a product of a joint Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF) / International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication
   Standardization Sector (ITU-T) effort to include an MPLS Transport
   Profile within the IETF MPLS and PWE3 architectures to support the
   capabilities and functionalities of a packet transport network.

1.1.  Scope

   This document has the following purposes:

   o  To identify the data plane functions within the MPLS Transport
      Profile;

   o  To indicate which of these data plane functions an MPLS-TP
      implementation is required to support.

   This document defines the encapsulation and forwarding functions
   applicable to packets traversing an MPLS-TP Label Switched Path
   (LSP), Pseudowire (PW), or Section (see Section 3 for the definitions
   of these transport entities).  Encapsulation and forwarding functions
   for packets outside an MPLS-TP LSP, PW, or Section, and mechanisms
   for delivering packets to or from MPLS-TP LSPs, PWs, and Sections,
   are outside the scope of this document.














Frost, et al.           Expires October 24, 2010                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft       MPLS-TP Data Plane Architecture          April 2010


1.2.  Terminology

   Term    Definition
   ------- ------------------------------------------
   ACH     Associated Channel Header
   G-ACh   Generic Associated Channel
   GAL     G-ACh Label
   LER     Label Edge Router
   LSP     Label Switched Path
   LSR     Label Switching Router
   MPLS-TP MPLS Transport Profile
   OAM     Operations, Administration and Maintenance
   PW      Pseudowire
   QoS     Quality of Service
   S-PE    PW Switching Provider Edge Node
   T-PE    PW Terminating Provider Edge Node
   TTL     Time To Live

   Additional definitions and terminology can be found in
   [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-framework] and [RFC5654].


2.  MPLS-TP Packet Encapsulation and Forwarding

   MPLS-TP packet encapsulation and forwarding SHALL operate according
   to the MPLS data plane architecture described in [RFC3031] and
   [RFC3032], and the data plane architectures for Single-Segment
   Pseudowires and Multi-Segment Pseudowires (see Section 3.3), except
   as noted otherwise in this document.  The MPLS-TP data plane
   satisfies the requirements specified in [RFC5654].

   Since an MPLS-TP packet is an MPLS packet as defined in [RFC3031] and
   [RFC3032], it will have an associated label stack, and the 'push',
   'pop', and 'swap' label processing operations specified in those
   documents apply.  The label stack represents a hierarchy of Label
   Switched Paths (LSPs).  A label is pushed to introduce an additional
   level of LSP hierarchy and popped to remove it.  Such an additional
   level may be introduced by any pair of LSRs, whereupon they become
   adjacent at this new level, and are then known as Label Edge Routers
   (LERs) with respect to the new LSP.

   In contrast to, for example, Section 3.10 of [RFC3031], support for
   Internet Protocol (IP) host and router data plane functionality by
   MPLS-TP interfaces and in MPLS-TP networks is OPTIONAL.

   MPLS-TP forwarding is based on the label that identifies an LSP or
   PW.  The label value specifies the processing operation to be
   performed by the next hop at that level of encapsulation.  Note that



Frost, et al.           Expires October 24, 2010                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft       MPLS-TP Data Plane Architecture          April 2010


   a swap of this label is an atomic operation in which the contents of
   the packet after the swapped label are opaque to the forwarding
   function.  The only event that interrupts a swap operation is Time To
   Live (TTL) expiry.

   At an LSR, S-PE, or T-PE, further processing occurs to determine the
   context of a packet occurs when a swap operation is interrupted by
   TTL expiry.  If the TTL of an LSP label expires, then the label with
   the S (Bottom of Stack) bit set is inspected to determine if it is a
   reserved label.  If it is a reserved label, the packet is processed
   according to the rules of that reserved label.  For example, if it is
   a Generic Associated Channel Label (GAL), then it is processed as a
   packet on the G-ACh; see Section 4.  If the TTL of a PW expires at an
   S-PE or T-PE, then the packet is examined to determine if a Generic
   Associated Channel Header (ACH) is present immediately below the PW
   label.  If so, then the packet is processed as a packet on the G-ACh.

   Similarly, if a pop operation at an LER exposes a reserved label at
   the top of the label stack, then the packet is processed according to
   the rules of that reserved label.

   If no such exception occurs, the packet is forwarded according to the
   procedures in [RFC3031] and [RFC3032].


3.  MPLS-TP Transport Entities

   The MPLS Transport Profile includes the following data plane
   transport entities:

   o  Label Switched Paths (LSPs)

   o  Sections

   o  Pseudowires (PWs)

3.1.  Label Switched Paths

   MPLS-TP LSPs are ordinary MPLS LSPs as defined in [RFC3031] except as
   specifically noted otherwise in this document.

3.1.1.  LSP Packet Encapsulation and Forwarding

   Encapsulation and forwarding of packets traversing MPLS-TP LSPs MUST
   follow standard MPLS packet encapsulation and forwarding as defined
   in [RFC3031], [RFC3032], [RFC5331], and [RFC5332], except as
   explicitly stated otherwise in this document.




Frost, et al.           Expires October 24, 2010                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft       MPLS-TP Data Plane Architecture          April 2010


   Data plane Quality of Service capabilities are included in the
   MPLS-TP in the form of Traffic Engineered (TE) LSPs [RFC3209] and the
   MPLS Differentiated Services (DiffServ) architecture [RFC3270].  Both
   E-LSP and L-LSP MPLS DiffServ modes are included.  The Traffic Class
   field (formerly the EXP field) of an MPLS label follows the
   definition of [RFC5462] and [RFC3270] and MUST be processed according
   to the rules specified in those documents.

   Note that, except for transient packet reordering which may occur,
   for example, during fault conditions, packets are delivered in order
   on L-LSPs, and on E-LSPs within a specific ordered aggregate.

   Support for the Pipe and Short Pipe DiffServ tunneling and TTL
   processing models described in [RFC3270] and [RFC3443] is REQUIRED by
   the MPLS-TP.  Support for the Uniform model is OPTIONAL.

   Per-platform, per-interface or other context-specific label space
   [RFC5331] MAY be used for MPLS-TP LSPs.  Downstream [RFC3031] or
   upstream [RFC5331] label allocation schemes MAY be used for MPLS-TP
   LSPs.  Note that the requirements of a particular LSP type may
   dictate which label spaces or allocation schemes it can use.

   Equal-Cost Multi-Path (ECMP) load-balancing MUST NOT be performed on
   an MPLS-TP LSP.  MPLS-TP LSPs as defined in this document MAY operate
   over a server layer that supports load-balancing, but this load-
   balancing MUST operate in such a manner that it is transparent to
   MPLS-TP.  Note that this does not preclude the future definition of
   new MPLS-TP LSP types which have different requirements regarding the
   use of ECMP in the server layer.

   Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP) MUST be disabled by default on MPLS-TP
   LSPs.

3.1.2.  LSP Payloads

   The MPLS-TP includes support for the following LSP payload types:

   o  Network-layer protocol packets (including MPLS-labeled packets)

   o  Pseudowire packets

   The rules for processing LSP payloads that are network-layer protocol
   packets SHALL be as specified in [RFC3032].

   The rules for processing LSP payloads that are pseudowire packets
   SHALL be as defined in the data plane pseudowire specifications (see
   Section 3.3).




Frost, et al.           Expires October 24, 2010                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft       MPLS-TP Data Plane Architecture          April 2010


   Note that the payload of an MPLS-TP LSP may be a packet that itself
   contains an MPLS label stack.  This is true, for instance, when the
   payload is a pseudowire or an MPLS LSP.  In this case the S (Bottom
   of Stack) bit SHALL be set to indicate the bottom (i.e. inner-most)
   label in the label stack that is contiguous between the MPLS-TP LSP
   and its payload.  This behaviour reflects best current practice in
   MPLS but differs slightly from [RFC3032], which uses the S bit to
   identify when MPLS label processing stops and network layer
   processing starts.

3.1.3.  LSP Types

   The MPLS-TP includes the following LSP types:

   o  Point-to-point unidirectional

   o  Point-to-point associated bidirectional

   o  Point-to-point co-routed bidirectional

   o  Point-to-multipoint unidirectional

   Point-to-point unidirectional LSPs are supported by the basic MPLS
   architecture [RFC3031] and are REQUIRED to function in the same
   manner in the MPLS-TP data plane except as explicitly stated
   otherwise in this document.

   A point-to-point associated bidirectional LSP between LSRs A and B
   consists of two unidirectional point-to-point LSPs, one from A to B
   and the other from B to A, which are regarded as a pair providing a
   single logical bidirectional transport path.

   A point-to-point co-routed bidirectional LSP is a point-to-point
   associated bidirectional LSP with the additional constraint that its
   two unidirectional component LSPs in each direction follow the same
   path (in terms of both nodes and links).  An important property of
   co-routed bidirectional LSPs is that their unidirectional component
   LSPs share fate.

   A point-to-multipoint unidirectional LSP functions in the same manner
   in the data plane, with respect to basic label processing and packet-
   switching operations, as a point-to-point unidirectional LSP, with
   one difference: an LSR may have more than one (egress interface,
   outgoing label) pair associated with the LSP, and any packet it
   transmits on the LSP is transmitted out all associated egress
   interfaces.  Point-to-multipoint LSPs are described in [RFC4875] and
   [RFC5332].  TTL processing and exception handling for point-to-
   multipoint LSPs is the same as for point-to-point LSPs and is



Frost, et al.           Expires October 24, 2010                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft       MPLS-TP Data Plane Architecture          April 2010


   described in Section 2.

3.2.  Sections

   Two MPLS-TP LSRs are considered to be topologically adjacent at a
   particular layer n >= 0 of the MPLS-TP LSP hierarchy if there exists
   connectivity between them at the next lowest network layer.  Such
   connectivity, if it exists, will be either an MPLS-TP LSP (if n > 0)
   or a data-link provided by the underlying server layer network (if n
   = 0), and is referred to as an MPLS-TP Section at layer n of the
   MPLS-TP LSP hierarchy.  Thus, the links traversed by a layer n+1
   MPLS-TP LSP are layer n MPLS-TP sections.  Such an LSP is referred to
   as a client of the section layer, and the section layer as the server
   layer with respect to its clients.

   Note that the MPLS label stack associated with an MPLS-TP section at
   layer n consists of n labels, in the absence of stack optimisation
   mechanisms.  Note also that in order for two LSRs to exchange non-IP
   MPLS-TP control packets over a section, an additional label, the
   G-ACh Label (GAL) (see Section 4) MUST appear at the bottom of the
   label stack.

   An MPLS-TP section may provide one or more of the following types of
   service to its client layer:

   o  Point-to-point bidirectional

   o  Point-to-point unidirectional

   o  Point-to-multipoint unidirectional

   The manner in which a section provides such a service is outside the
   scope of the MPLS-TP.

   Note that an LSP of any of the types listed in Section 3.1.3 may
   serve as a section for a client-layer transport entity as long as it
   supports the type of service the client requires.

   An important difference exists between data-link-based sections and
   LSP-based sections.  A data-link-based section can carry additional
   packet context information such as a protocol type indication.  If an
   LSP-based section requires such context, then a service label (see
   [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-framework]) must be used to provide it.

3.3.  Pseudowires

   The data plane architectures for Single-Segment Pseudowires [RFC3985]
   and Multi-Segment Pseudowires [RFC5659] are included in the MPLS-TP.



Frost, et al.           Expires October 24, 2010                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft       MPLS-TP Data Plane Architecture          April 2010


   Data plane processing procedures for pseudowires SHALL be as defined
   in the following documents and in any future pseudowire data plane
   specifications:

   o  [RFC4717]

   o  [RFC4816]

   o  [RFC4385]

   o  [RFC4448]

   o  [RFC4619]

   o  [RFC4618]

   o  [RFC4553]

   o  [RFC4842]

   o  [RFC5087]

   o  [I-D.ietf-pwe3-fc-encap]

   o  [RFC5086]

   This document specifies no modifications or extensions to pseudowire
   data plane architectures or protocols.


4.  MPLS-TP Generic Associated Channel

   The MPLS Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) mechanism is specified in
   [RFC5586] and included in the MPLS-TP.  The G-ACh provides an
   auxiliary logical data channel associated with MPLS-TP Sections,
   LSPs, and PWs in the data plane.  The primary purpose of the G-ACh in
   the context of MPLS-TP is to support control, management, and
   Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) traffic associated
   with MPLS-TP transport entities.  The G-ACh MUST NOT be used to
   transport client layer network traffic in MPLS-TP networks.

   For pseudowires, the G-ACh uses the first four bits of the PW control
   word to provide the initial discrimination between data packets and
   packets belonging to the associated channel, as described in
   [RFC4385].  When this first nibble of a packet, immediately following
   the label at the bottom of stack, has a value of '1', then this
   packet belongs to a G-ACh.  The first 32 bits following the bottom of
   stack label then have a defined format called an Associated Channel



Frost, et al.           Expires October 24, 2010                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft       MPLS-TP Data Plane Architecture          April 2010


   Header (ACH), which further defines the content of the packet.  The
   ACH is therefore both a demultiplexer for G-ACh traffic on the PW,
   and a discriminator for the type of G-ACh traffic.

   When the the control message is carried over a section or an LSP,
   rather than over a PW, it is necessary to provide an indication in
   the packet that the payload is something other than a client data
   packet.  This is achieved by including a reserved label with a value
   of 13 at the bottom of the label stack.  This reserved label is
   referred to as the G-ACh Label (GAL), and is defined in [RFC5586].
   When a GAL is found, it indicates that the payload begins with an
   ACH.  The GAL is thus a demultiplexer for G-ACh traffic on the
   section or the LSP, and the ACH is a discriminator for the type of
   traffic carried on the G-ACh.  Note however that MPLS-TP forwarding
   follows the normal MPLS model, and that a GAL is invisible to an LSR
   unless it is the top label in the label stack.  The only other
   circumstance under which the label stack may be inspected for a GAL
   is when the TTL has expired.  Note that normal packet forwarding MAY
   continue concurrently with this inspection.  All operations on the
   label stack are in accordance with [RFC3031] and [RFC3032].

   An application processing a packet received over the G-ACh may
   require packet-specific context (such as the receiving interface or
   received label stack).  Data plane implementations MUST therefore
   provide adequate context to the application which is to process a
   G-ACh packet.  The definition of the context required MUST be
   provided as part of the specification of the application using the
   G-ACh.


5.  Server Layer Considerations

   The MPLS-TP network has no awareness of the internals of the server
   layer of which it is a client, requiring only that the server layer
   be capable of delivering the type of service required by the MPLS-TP
   transport entities that make use of it.  Note that what appears to be
   a single server layer link to the MPLS-TP network may be a
   complicated construct underneath, such as an LSP or a collection of
   underlying links operating as a bundle.  Special care may be needed
   in network design and operation when such constructs are used as a
   server layer for MPLS-TP.

   Encapsulation of MPLS-TP packets for transport over specific server-
   layer media is outside the scope of this document.







Frost, et al.           Expires October 24, 2010               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft       MPLS-TP Data Plane Architecture          April 2010


6.  Security Considerations

   The MPLS data plane (and therefore the MPLS-TP data plane) does not
   provide any security mechanisms in and of itself.  The following
   behaviour, however, is considered a best current practise for MPLS
   LSRs which is also applicable to MPLS-TP:

   An LSR SHOULD discard a packet received from a particular neighbour
   unless one of the following two conditions holds:

   1.  Any MPLS label processed at the receiving LSR, such as an LSP or
       PW label, has a label value that the receiving LSR has
       distributed to that neighbour; or

   2.  Any MPLS label processed at the receiving LSR, such as an LSP or
       PW label, has a label value that the receiving LSR has previously
       distributed to the peer beyond that neighbour (i.e., when it is
       known that the path from the system to which the label was
       distributed to the receiving system is via that neighbour).

   Client layers that wish to secure data carried over MPLS-TP transport
   entities are REQUIRED to apply their own security mechanisms.

   Where management or control plane protocols are used to install label
   switching operations necessary to establish MPLS-TP transport paths,
   those protocols are equipped with security features and network
   operators may use those features to securely create the transport
   paths.

   Further details of MPLS security can be found in
   [I-D.ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework].


7.  IANA Considerations

   This document introduces no new IANA considerations.


8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

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

   [RFC3031]  Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
              Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001.




Frost, et al.           Expires October 24, 2010               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft       MPLS-TP Data Plane Architecture          April 2010


   [RFC3032]  Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
              Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
              Encoding", RFC 3032, January 2001.

   [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.

   [RFC3270]  Le Faucheur, F., Wu, L., Davie, B., Davari, S., Vaananen,
              P., Krishnan, R., Cheval, P., and J. Heinanen, "Multi-
              Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Support of Differentiated
              Services", RFC 3270, May 2002.

   [RFC3443]  Agarwal, P. and B. Akyol, "Time To Live (TTL) Processing
              in Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Networks",
              RFC 3443, January 2003.

   [RFC4385]  Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson,
              "Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for
              Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, February 2006.

   [RFC4448]  Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., and G. Heron,
              "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Ethernet over MPLS
              Networks", RFC 4448, April 2006.

   [RFC4553]  Vainshtein, A. and YJ. Stein, "Structure-Agnostic Time
              Division Multiplexing (TDM) over Packet (SAToP)",
              RFC 4553, June 2006.

   [RFC4618]  Martini, L., Rosen, E., Heron, G., and A. Malis,
              "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of PPP/High-Level
              Data Link Control (HDLC) over MPLS Networks", RFC 4618,
              September 2006.

   [RFC4619]  Martini, L., Kawa, C., and A. Malis, "Encapsulation
              Methods for Transport of Frame Relay over Multiprotocol
              Label Switching (MPLS) Networks", RFC 4619,
              September 2006.

   [RFC4717]  Martini, L., Jayakumar, J., Bocci, M., El-Aawar, N.,
              Brayley, J., and G. Koleyni, "Encapsulation Methods for
              Transport of Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) over MPLS
              Networks", RFC 4717, December 2006.

   [RFC4816]  Malis, A., Martini, L., Brayley, J., and T. Walsh,
              "Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Asynchronous
              Transfer Mode (ATM) Transparent Cell Transport Service",
              RFC 4816, February 2007.



Frost, et al.           Expires October 24, 2010               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft       MPLS-TP Data Plane Architecture          April 2010


   [RFC4842]  Malis, A., Pate, P., Cohen, R., and D. Zelig, "Synchronous
              Optical Network/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SONET/SDH)
              Circuit Emulation over Packet (CEP)", RFC 4842,
              April 2007.

   [RFC4875]  Aggarwal, R., Papadimitriou, D., and S. Yasukawa,
              "Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic
              Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE Label
              Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875, May 2007.

   [RFC5331]  Aggarwal, R., Rekhter, Y., and E. Rosen, "MPLS Upstream
              Label Assignment and Context-Specific Label Space",
              RFC 5331, August 2008.

   [RFC5332]  Eckert, T., Rosen, E., Aggarwal, R., and Y. Rekhter, "MPLS
              Multicast Encapsulations", RFC 5332, August 2008.

   [RFC5462]  Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multiprotocol Label Switching
              (MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic
              Class" Field", RFC 5462, February 2009.

   [RFC5586]  Bocci, M., Vigoureux, M., and S. Bryant, "MPLS Generic
              Associated Channel", RFC 5586, June 2009.

   [RFC5654]  Niven-Jenkins, B., Brungard, D., Betts, M., Sprecher, N.,
              and S. Ueno, "Requirements of an MPLS Transport Profile",
              RFC 5654, September 2009.

8.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework]
              Fang, L. and M. Behringer, "Security Framework for MPLS
              and GMPLS Networks",
              draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework-09 (work
              in progress), March 2010.

   [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-framework]
              Bocci, M., Bryant, S., Frost, D., Levrau, L., and L.
              Berger, "A Framework for MPLS in Transport Networks",
              draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-11 (work in progress),
              April 2010.

   [I-D.ietf-pwe3-fc-encap]
              Black, D., Roth, M., Tsurusawa, M., Solomon, R., and L.
              Dunbar, "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Fibre
              Channel frames Over MPLS Networks",
              draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap-10 (work in progress),
              February 2010.



Frost, et al.           Expires October 24, 2010               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft       MPLS-TP Data Plane Architecture          April 2010


   [RFC3985]  Bryant, S. and P. Pate, "Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-
              Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985, March 2005.

   [RFC5086]  Vainshtein, A., Sasson, I., Metz, E., Frost, T., and P.
              Pate, "Structure-Aware Time Division Multiplexed (TDM)
              Circuit Emulation Service over Packet Switched Network
              (CESoPSN)", RFC 5086, December 2007.

   [RFC5087]  Stein, Y(J)., Shashoua, R., Insler, R., and M. Anavi,
              "Time Division Multiplexing over IP (TDMoIP)", RFC 5087,
              December 2007.

   [RFC5659]  Bocci, M. and S. Bryant, "An Architecture for Multi-
              Segment Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge", RFC 5659,
              October 2009.


Authors' Addresses

   Dan Frost (editor)
   Cisco Systems

   Email: danfrost@cisco.com


   Stewart Bryant (editor)
   Cisco Systems

   Email: stbryant@cisco.com


   Matthew Bocci (editor)
   Alcatel-Lucent

   Email: matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com
















Frost, et al.           Expires October 24, 2010               [Page 14]


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