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

Versions: (draft-bocci-mpls-tp-gach-gal) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 RFC 5586

MPLS Working Group                                         M. Bocci, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                         M. Vigoureux, Ed.
Updates: 3032, 4385, 5085                                 Alcatel-Lucent
(if approved)                                                 G. Swallow
Intended status: Standards Track                                 D. Ward
Expires: November 1, 2009                                      S. Bryant
                                                                   Cisco
                                                             R. Aggarwal
                                                        Juniper Networks
                                                          April 30, 2009


                    MPLS Generic Associated Channel
                     draft-ietf-mpls-tp-gach-gal-04

Status of this Memo

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

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on November 1, 2009.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of
   publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.



Bocci, et al.           Expires November 1, 2009                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                G-ACh and GAL                   April 2009


Abstract

   This document generalizes the applicability of the pseudowire (PW)
   Associated Channel Header (ACH), enabling the realization of a
   control channel associated to MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs) and
   MPLS Sections in addition to MPLS pseudowires.  In order to identify
   the presence of this Associated Channel Header in the label stack,
   this document also assigns one of the reserved MPLS label values to
   the Generic Associated Channel Label (GAL), to be used as a label
   based exception mechanism.

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 [1].



































Bocci, et al.           Expires November 1, 2009                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                G-ACh and GAL                   April 2009


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.1.  Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     1.2.  Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     1.3.  Scope  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     1.4.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   2.  Generic Associated Channel Header  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     2.1.  Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     2.2.  Allocation of Channel Types  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   3.  ACH TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.1.  ACH TLV Payload Structure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.2.  ACH TLV Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.3.  ACH TLV Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   4.  Generalized Exception Mechanism  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     4.1.  Relationship with Existing MPLS OAM Alert Mechanisms . . . 10
     4.2.  GAL Applicability and Usage  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       4.2.1.  GAL Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     4.3.  Relationship with RFC 3429 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   5.  Compatibility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   6.  Congestion Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   7.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   8.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   9.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19























Bocci, et al.           Expires November 1, 2009                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                G-ACh and GAL                   April 2009


1.  Introduction

   There is a need for Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM)
   mechanisms that can be used for fault detection, diagnostics,
   maintenance and other functions on a pseudowire (PW) and a Label
   Switched Path (LSP).  These functions can be used between any two
   Label Edge Routers (LERs) / Label Switching Router (LSRs) or
   Terminating Provider Edge routers (T-PEs) / Switching Provider Edge
   routers (S-PEs) along the path of an LSP or PW respectively [11].
   Some of these functions can be supported using existing tools such as
   Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) [2], Bidirectional
   Forwarding Detection for MPLS LSPs (BFD-MPLS) [12], LSP-Ping [13], or
   BFD-VCCV [14].  However, a requirement has been indicated to augment
   this set of maintenance functions, in particular when MPLS networks
   are used for packet transport services and transport network
   operations [15].  Examples of these functions include performance
   monitoring, automatic protection switching, and support for
   management and signaling communication channels.  These tools MUST be
   applicable to, and function in essentially the same manner (from an
   operational point of view) on MPLS PWs, MPLS LSPs and MPLS Sections.
   They MUST also operate in-band on the PW or LSP such that they do not
   depend on Packet Switched Network (PSN) routing or on user traffic,
   and MUST also NOT depend on dynamic control plane functions.

   VCCV [2] can use an Associated Channel Header (ACH) to provide a PW-
   associated control channel between a PW's end points, over which OAM
   and other control messages can be exchanged.  This document
   generalizes the applicability of the ACH to enable the same
   associated control channel mechanism to be used for Sections, LSPs
   and PWs.  The associated control channel thus generalized is known as
   the Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh).  The ACH, specified in RFC
   4385 [3], may be used with additional code points to support
   additional MPLS maintenance functions on the G-ACh.

   Generalizing the applicability of the ACH to LSPs and Sections also
   requires a method to identify that a packet contains an ACH followed
   by a non-service payload.  Therefore, this document also defines a
   label based exception mechanism that serves to inform an LSR (or LER)
   that a packet it receives on an LSP or Section belongs to an
   associated control channel.  The label used for that purpose is one
   of the MPLS reserved labels and is referred to as the GAL (G-ACh
   Label).  The GAL mechanism is defined to work together with the ACH
   for LSPs and MPLS Sections.

   RFC 4379 [13] and BFD-MPLS [12] define alert mechanisms that enable
   an MPLS LSR to identify and process MPLS OAM packets when these are
   encapsulated in an IP header.  These alert mechanisms are based, for
   example, on Time To Live (TTL) expiration and/or on the use of an IP



Bocci, et al.           Expires November 1, 2009                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                G-ACh and GAL                   April 2009


   destination address in the range of 127/8 or 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:
   127.0.0.0/104, respectively for IPv4 and IPv6.  These mechanisms are
   the default mechanisms for identifying MPLS OAM packets when
   encapsulated in an IP header.  However it may not always be possible
   to use these mechanisms in some MPLS applications e.g., MPLS
   Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) [11], particularly when IP based
   demultiplexing cannot be used.  This document defines a mechanism
   that is RECOMMENDED for identifying and encapsulating MPLS OAM and
   other maintenance messages when IP based mechanisms such as those
   used in [13] and [12] are not available.  Yet, this mechanism MAY be
   used in addition to IP-based mechanisms.

   Note that, in this document, maintenance functions and packets should
   be understood in the broad sense.  That is, a set of maintenance and
   management mechanisms that include OAM, Automatic Protection
   Switching (APS), Signaling Communication Channel (SCC) and Management
   Communication Channel (MCC) messages.

   Also note that the GAL and ACH are applicable to MPLS and PWs in
   general.  This document specifies general mechanism and uses MPLS-TP
   as an example application.  The application of the GAL and ACH to
   other specific MPLS uses is outside the scope of this document.

1.1.  Contributing Authors

   The editors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Sami Boutros,
   Italo Busi, Marc Lasserre, Lieven Levrau and Siva Sivabalan

1.2.  Objectives

   This document defines a mechanism that provides a solution to the
   extended maintenance needs of emerging applications for MPLS.  It
   creates a generic control channel mechanism that may be applied to
   MPLS LSPs and Sections, while maintaining compatibility with the PW
   associated channel.  It also normalizes the use of the ACH for PWs in
   a transport context, and defines a label based exception mechanism to
   alert LERs/LSRs of the presence of an ACH after the bottom of the
   stack.

1.3.  Scope

   This document defines the encapsulation header for Sections, LSPs,
   and PWs associated control channel messages.

   It does not define how associated control channel capabilities are
   signaled or negotiated between LERs/LSRs or PEs, or the operation of
   various OAM functions.




Bocci, et al.           Expires November 1, 2009                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                G-ACh and GAL                   April 2009


   This document does not deprecate existing MPLS and PW OAM mechanisms.

1.4.  Terminology

   ACH: Associated Channel Header

   G-ACh: Generic Associated Channel

   GAL: G-ACh Label

   G-ACh packet: Any packet containing a message belonging to a protocol
   that is carried on a PW, LSP or MPLS Section associated control
   channel.  Examples include maintenance protocols such as OAM
   functions, signaling communications or management communications.

   The terms 'Section' and 'Concatenated Segment' are defined in [16] as
   follows (note that the terms 'Section' and ''Section Layer Network'
   are synonymous):

   Concatenated Segment: A serial-compound link connection as defined in
   [17].  A concatenated segment is a contiguous part of an LSP or
   multi-segment PW that comprises a set of segments and their
   interconnecting nodes in sequence.

   Section Layer Network: A section is a server layer (which may be
   MPLS-TP or a different technology) which provides for encapsulation
   and OAM of a client layer network.  A section layer may provide for
   aggregation of multiple MPLS-TP clients.  Note that G.805 [17]
   defines the section layer as one of the two layer networks in a
   transmission media layer network.  The other layer network is the
   physical media layer network.


2.  Generic Associated Channel Header

   VCCV [2] defines three Control Channel (CC) Types that may be used to
   exchange OAM messages through a PW: CC Type 1 uses an ACH and is
   referred to as "In-band VCCV"; CC Type 2 uses the MPLS Router Alert
   Label to indicate VCCV packets and is referred to as "Out of Band
   VCCV"; CC Type 3 uses the TTL to force the packet to be processed by
   the targeted router control plane and is referred to as "MPLS PW
   Label with TTL == 1".

2.1.  Definition

   The use of the ACH, previously limited to PWs, is here generalized to
   also apply to LSPs and to Sections.  Note that for PWs, the PWE3
   control word [3] MUST be present in the encapsulation of user packets



Bocci, et al.           Expires November 1, 2009                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                G-ACh and GAL                   April 2009


   when the ACH is used to realize the associated control channel.

   The ACH used by CC Type 1 is depicted in figure 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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0 0 0 1|Version|   Reserved    |         Channel Type          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                    Figure 1: Associated Channel Header

   In the above figure, the first nibble is set to 0001b to indicate a
   control channel associated with a PW, an LSP or a Section.  The
   Version field is set to 0, as specified in RFC 4385 [3].  Bits 8 to
   15 of the ACH are reserved and MUST be set to 0 and ignored on
   reception.  Bits 16 to 31 are used to encode the possible Channel
   Types.

   Note that VCCV [2] also includes mechanisms for negotiating the
   Control Channel and Connectivity Verification (i.e., OAM function)
   Types between PEs.  It is anticipated that similar mechanisms will be
   applied to LSPs.  Such application will require further
   specification.  However, such specification is beyond the scope of
   this document.

   The G-ACh MUST NOT be used to transport user traffic.

2.2.  Allocation of Channel Types

   The Channel Type field indicates the type of message carried on the
   associated control channel e.g., IPv4 or IPv6 if IP demultiplexing is
   used for messages sent on the associated control channel, or OAM or
   other maintenance function if IP demultiplexing is not used.  For
   associated control channel packets where IP is not used as the
   multiplexer, the Channel Type indicates the specific protocol carried
   in the associated control channel.

   Values for the Channel Type field currently used for VCCV are
   specified elsewhere e.g., in RFC 4446 [4] and RFC 4385 [3].
   Additional Channel Type values and the associated maintenance
   functionality will be defined in other documents.  Each document,
   specifying a protocol solution relying on the ACH, MUST also specify
   the applicable Channel Type field value.

   Note that these values are allocated from the PW Associated Channel
   Type registry [4], but this document modifies the existing policy to
   accommodate a level of experimentation.  See Section 8 for further



Bocci, et al.           Expires November 1, 2009                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                G-ACh and GAL                   April 2009


   details.


3.  ACH TLVs

   In some applications of the generalized associated control channel it
   is necessary to include one or more ACH TLVs to provide additional
   context information to the G-ACh packet.  One use of these ACH TLVs
   might be to identify the source and/or intended destination of the
   associated channel message.  However, the use of this construct is
   not limited to providing addressing information nor is the
   applicability restricted to transport network applications.

   If the G-ACh message MAY be preceded by one or more ACH TLVs, then
   this MUST be explicitly specified in the definition of an ACH Channel
   Type.  If the ACH Channel Type definition does state that one or more
   ACH TLVs MAY precede the G-ACh message, an ACH TLV Header MUST follow
   the ACH.  If no ACH TLVs are required in a specific associated
   channel packet, but the Channel Type nevertheless defines that ACH
   TLVs MAY be used, an ACH TLV Header MUST be present but with a length
   field set to zero to indicate that no ACH TLV follow this header.

   If an ACH Channel Type specification does not explicitly specify that
   ACH TLVs MAY be used, then the ACH TLV Header MUST NOT be used.

3.1.  ACH TLV Payload Structure

   This section defines and describes the structure of an ACH payload
   when an ACH TLV Header is present.  The structure of ACH TLVs that
   MAY follow an ACH TLV Header is defined and described in the
   following sections.

   The following figure (Figure 2) shows the structure of a G-ACh packet
   payload.

















Bocci, et al.           Expires November 1, 2009                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                G-ACh and GAL                   April 2009


   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                              ACH                              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                         ACH TLV Header                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               ~
   ~                     zero or more ACH TLVs                     ~
   ~                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               ~
   ~                        G-ACh Message                          ~
   ~                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                    Figure 2: ACH TLV Payload Structure

3.2.  ACH TLV Header

   The ACH TLV Header defines the length of the set of ACH TLVs that
   follow.

    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               |            Reserved           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                         Figure 3: ACH TLV Header

   The Length field specifies the length in octets of the complete set
   of TLVs including sub-TLVs that follow the ACH TLV header.  A length
   of zero indicates that no ACH TLV follow this header.  Note that no
   padding is required for the set of ACH TLVs.

   The Reserved field is for future use and MUST be set to zero on
   transmission and ignored on reception.

3.3.  ACH TLV Object

   An ACH TLV consists of a 16-bit Type field, followed by a 16-bit
   Length field which specifies the number of octets of the Value field
   which follows the Length field.  This 32-bit word is followed by zero
   or more octets of Value information.  The format and semantics of the
   Value information are defined by the TLV Type as recorded in the TLV
   Type registry.  See Section 8 for further details.  Note that the
   Value field of ACH TLVs MAY contain sub-TLVs.  Note that no padding
   is required for individual TLVs or sub-TLVs.




Bocci, et al.           Expires November 1, 2009                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                G-ACh and GAL                   April 2009


    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           TLV Type            |          Length               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               ~
   ~                             Value                             ~
   ~                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                         Figure 4: ACH TLV Format


4.  Generalized Exception Mechanism

   Generalizing the associated control channel mechanism to LSPs and
   Sections also requires a method to identify that a packet contains an
   ACH followed by a non-service payload.  This document specifies that
   a label is used for that purpose and calls this special label the
   G-ACh Label (GAL).  One of the reserved label values defined in RFC
   3032 [5] is assigned for this purpose.  The value of the label is to
   be allocated by IANA; this document suggests the value 13.

   The GAL provides an alert based exception mechanism to:

   o  differentiate specific packets (i.e., G-ACh packets) from others,
      such as user-plane ones,

   o  indicate that the ACH appears immediately after the bottom of the
      label stack.

   The GAL MUST only be used where both these purposes apply.

4.1.  Relationship with Existing MPLS OAM Alert Mechanisms

   RFC 4379 [13] and BFD-MPLS [12] define alert mechanisms that enable
   an MPLS LSR to identify and process MPLS OAM packets when these are
   encapsulated in an IP header.  These alert mechanisms are based, for
   example, on Time To Live (TTL) expiration and/or on the use of an IP
   destination address in the range of 127/8 or 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:
   127.0.0.0/104, respectively for IPv4 and IPv6.

   These mechanisms are the default mechanisms for identifying MPLS OAM
   packets when encapsulated in an IP header although the mechanism
   defined in this document MAY also be used.






Bocci, et al.           Expires November 1, 2009               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                G-ACh and GAL                   April 2009


4.2.  GAL Applicability and Usage

   In MPLS-TP, the GAL MUST be used with packets on a G-ACh on LSPs,
   Concatenated Segments of LSPs, and with Sections, and MUST NOT be
   used with PWs.  It MUST always be at the bottom of the label stack
   (i.e., S bit set to 1).  However, in other MPLS environments, this
   document places no restrictions on where the GAL may appear within
   the label stack or its use with PWs.  Where the GAL is at the bottom
   of the label stack (i.e.  S bit set to 1) then it MUST always be
   followed by an ACH.

   The GAL MUST NOT appear in the label stack when transporting normal
   user-plane packets.  Furthermore, when present, the GAL MUST NOT
   appear more than once in the label stack.

   A receiving LSR, LER or PE MUST NOT forward a G-ACh packet to another
   node based on the GAL label.

4.2.1.  GAL Processing

   The Traffic Class (TC) field (formerly known as the EXP field) of the
   Label Stack Entry (LSE) containing the GAL follows the definition and
   processing rules specified and referenced in [6].

   The Time-To-Live (TTL) field of the LSE that contains the GAL follows
   the definition and processing rules specified in [7].

4.2.1.1.  MPLS Label Switched Paths and Segments

   The following figure (Figure 5) depicts two LERs (A and D) and two
   LSRs (B and C) for a given LSP which is established from A to D and
   switched in B and C.

        +---+             +---+             +---+             +---+
        | A |-------------| B |-------------| C |-------------| D |
        +---+             +---+             +---+             +---+

                     Figure 5: Maintenance over a LSP

   In this example, a G-ACh exists on the LSP that extends between LERs
   A and D, via LSRs B and C. Only A and D may initiate the generation
   of G-ACh packets.  A, B, C and D may also originate and process G-ACh
   packets.

   The following figure (Figure 6) depicts the format of a MPLS-TP G-ACh
   packet when used for an LSP.





Bocci, et al.           Expires November 1, 2009               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                G-ACh and GAL                   April 2009


    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |               LSP Label               |  TC |S|       TTL     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                  GAL                  |  TC |S|       TTL     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                              ACH                              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                  ACH TLV Header (if present)                  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               ~
   ~                     Zero or more ACH TLVs                     ~
   ~                           (if present)                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               ~
   ~                         G-ACh Message                         ~
   ~                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                  Figure 6: G-ACh packet format for a LSP

   Note that it is possible that the LSP may be tunneled in another LSP
   (e.g., if a MPLS Tunnel exists between B and C), and as such other
   LSEs may be present in the label stack.

   To send a maintenance message on the LSP associated control channel,
   the LER (A) generates a G-ACh message, to which it MAY prepend an ACH
   TLV Header and appropriate ACH TLVs, adds an ACH to which it, pushes
   a GAL LSE and finally the LSP Label LSE.

   o  The TTL field of the GAL LSE MUST be set to at least 1.  The exact
      value of the TTL is application specific.  See Section 4.2.1 for
      definition and processing rules.

   o  The S bit of the GAL MUST be set according to its position in the
      label stack (see Section 4.2).

   o  The setting of the TC field of the GAL is application specific.
      See Section 4.2.1 for definition and processing rules.

   The G-ACh message, the ACH or the GAL SHOULD NOT be modified towards
   the targeted destination.  Upon reception of the labeled packet, the
   targeted destination, after having checked both the LSP Label and GAL
   LSEs fields, SHOULD pass the whole packet to the appropriate
   processing entity.





Bocci, et al.           Expires November 1, 2009               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                G-ACh and GAL                   April 2009


4.2.1.2.  MPLS Section

   The following figure (Figure 7) depicts an example of an MPLS
   Section.

                          +---+             +---+
                          | A |-------------| Z |
                          +---+             +---+

                Figure 7: Maintenance over an MPLS Section

   With regard to the MPLS Section, a G-ACh exists between A and Z. Only
   A and Z can insert, extract or process packets on this G-ACh.

   The following figure (Figure 8) depicts the format of a G-ACh packet
   when used for an MPLS Section.  The GAL MAY provide the exception
   mechanism for a control channel in its own right without being
   associated with a specific LSP, thus providing maintenance related
   communications across a specific link interconnecting two LSRs.  In
   this case, the GAL is the only label in the stack.

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                  GAL                  |  TC |S|       TTL     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                             ACH                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                  ACH TLV Header (if present)                  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               ~
   ~                     Zero or more ACH TLVs                     ~
   ~                         (if present)                          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               ~
   ~                         G-ACh message                         ~
   ~                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

             Figure 8: G-ACh packet format for an MPLS Section

   To send a G-ACh message on a control channel associated to the
   Section, the head-end LSR (A) of the Section generates a G-ACh
   message, to which it MAY prepend an ACH TLV Header and appropriate
   ACH TLVs, adds an ACH to which it pushes a GAL LSE.






Bocci, et al.           Expires November 1, 2009               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft                G-ACh and GAL                   April 2009


   o  The TTL field of the GAL MUST be set to at least 1.  The exact
      value of the TTL is application specific.  See Section 4.2.1 for
      definition and processing rules.

   o  The S bit of the GAL MUST be set according to its position in the
      label stack. (see Section 4.2).

   o  The setting of the TC field of the GAL is application specific.
      See Section 4.2.1 for definition and processing rules.

   The G-ACh message, the ACH and the GAL SHOULD NOT be modified towards
   the tail-end LSR (Z).  Upon reception of the G-ACh packet, the tail-
   end LSR (Z), after having checked the GAL LSE fields, SHOULD pass the
   whole packet to the appropriate processing entity.

4.3.  Relationship with RFC 3429

   RFC 3429 [18] describes the assignment of one of the reserved label
   values, defined in RFC 3032 [5], to the 'OAM Alert Label' that is
   used by user-plane MPLS OAM functions for the identification of MPLS
   OAM packets.  The value of 14 is used for that purpose.

   Both this document and RFC 3429 [18] therefore describe the
   assignment of reserved label values for similar purposes.  The
   rationale for the assignment of a new reserved label can be
   summarized as follows:

   o  Unlike the mechanisms described and referenced in RFC 3429 [18],
      G-ACh messages will not reside immediately after the GAL but
      instead behind the ACH, which itself resides after the bottom of
      the label stack.

   o  The set of maintenance functions potentially operated in the
      context of the G-ACh is wider than the set of OAM functions
      referenced in RFC 3429 [18].

   o  It has been reported that there are existing implementations and
      running deployments using the 'OAM Alert Label' as described in
      RFC 3429 [18].  It is therefore not possible to modify the 'OAM
      Alert Label' allocation, purpose or usage.  Nevertheless, it is
      RECOMMENDED that no further OAM extensions based on 'OAM Alert
      Label' (Label 14) usage be specified or developed.


5.  Compatibility

   Procedures for handling a packet received with an invalid incoming
   label are specified in RFC 3031[8].



Bocci, et al.           Expires November 1, 2009               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft                G-ACh and GAL                   April 2009


   An LER, LSR or PE MUST discard received associated channel packets on
   which all of the MPLS or PW labels have been popped if any one of the
   following conditions is true:

   o  It is not capable of processing packets on the Channel Type
      indicated by the ACH of the received packet.

   o  It has not, through means outside the scope of this document,
      indicated to the sending LSR, LER or PE that it will process
      associated channel packets on the Channel Type indicated by the
      ACH of the received packet.

   o  The packet is received on an Experimental Channel Type that is
      locally disabled.

   o  If the ACH was indicated by the presence of a GAL, and the first
      nibble of the ACH of the received packet is not 0b0001.

   o  The ACH version is not recognized.

   In addition, it MAY increment an error counter and MAY also issue a
   system and/or SNMP notification.


6.  Congestion Considerations

   The congestion considerations detailed in RFC 5085 [2] apply.


7.  Security Considerations

   The security considerations for the associated control channel are
   described in RFC 4385 [3].  Further security considerations MUST be
   described in the relevant associated channel type specification.

   RFC 5085 [2] provides data plane related security considerations.
   These also apply to a G-ACh, whether the alert mechanism uses a GAL
   or only an ACH.


8.  IANA Considerations

   This document requests that IANA allocates a label value, to the GAL,
   from the pool of reserved labels in the "Multiprotocol Label
   Switching Architecture (MPLS) Label Values" registry, and suggests
   this value to be 13.

   Channel Types for the Associated Channel Header are allocated from



Bocci, et al.           Expires November 1, 2009               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft                G-ACh and GAL                   April 2009


   the IANA "PW Associated Channel Type" registry [4].  The PW
   Associated Channel Type registry is currently allocated based on the
   IETF consensus process, described in [9].  This allocation process
   was chosen based on the consensus reached in the PWE3 working group
   that pseudowire associated channel mechanisms should be reviewed by
   the IETF and only those that are consistent with the PWE3
   architecture and requirements should be allocated a code point.

   However, a requirement has emerged (see [15]) to allow for
   optimizations or extensions to OAM and other control protocols
   running in an associated channel to be experimented without resorting
   to the IETF standards process, by supporting experimental code
   points.  This would prevent code points used for such functions from
   being used from the range allocated through the IETF standards and
   thus protects an installed base of equipment from potential
   inadvertent overloading of code points.  In order to support this
   requirement, this document requests that the code point allocation
   scheme for the PW Associated Channel Type be changed as follows:

   0 - 32751 : IETF Consensus

   32760 - 32767 : Experimental

   Code points in the experimental range MUST be used according to the
   guidelines of RFC 3692 [10].  Functions using experimental G-ACh code
   points MUST be disabled by default.  The Channel Type value used for
   a given experimental OAM function MUST be configurable, and care MUST
   be taken to ensure that different OAM functions that are not inter-
   operable are configured to use different Channel Type values.

   The PW Associated Channel Type registry needs to be updated to
   include a column indicating whether the ACH is followed by a ACH TLV
   header (Yes/No).  There are two ACH Channel Type code-points
   currently assigned and in both cases no ACH TLV header is used.  Thus
   the new format of the PW Channel Type registry is:

   Registry:
   Value  Description                   TLV Follows  Reference
   -----  ----------------------------  -----------  ---------
   0x21   ACH carries an IPv4 packet    No           [RFC4385]
   0x57   ACH carries an IPv6 packet    No           [RFC4385]

                    Figure 9: PW Channel Type registry








Bocci, et al.           Expires November 1, 2009               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft                G-ACh and GAL                   April 2009


   IANA is requested create a new registry called the Associated Channel
   Header TLV Registry.  The allocation policy for this registry is IETF
   consensus.  This registry MUST record the following information.
   There are no initial entries.

   Name       Type  Length   Description                  Reference
                   (octets)

                        Figure 10: ACH TLV registry


9.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Malcolm Betts, ITU-T Study Group 15,
   and all members of the teams (the Joint Working Team, the MPLS
   Interoperability Design Team in IETF and the MPLS-TP Ad-Hoc Team in
   ITU-T) involved in the definition and specification of the MPLS
   Transport Profile.


10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

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

   [2]   Nadeau, T. and C. Pignataro, "Pseudowire Virtual Circuit
         Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control Channel for
         Pseudowires", RFC 5085, December 2007.

   [3]   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.

   [4]   Martini, L., "IANA Allocations for Pseudowire Edge to Edge
         Emulation (PWE3)", BCP 116, RFC 4446, April 2006.

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

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

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



Bocci, et al.           Expires November 1, 2009               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft                G-ACh and GAL                   April 2009


         January 2003.

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

   [9]   Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
         Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008.

   [10]  Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers
         Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, January 2004.

10.2.  Informative References

   [11]  Bocci, M., Bryant, S., and L. Levrau, "A Framework for MPLS in
         Transport Networks", draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-00 (work in
         progress), November 2008.

   [12]  Aggarwal, R., Kompella, K., Nadeau, T., and G. Swallow, "BFD
         For MPLS LSPs", draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-07 (work in progress),
         June 2008.

   [13]  Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol Label
         Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379, February 2006.

   [14]  Nadeau, T. and C. Pignataro, "Bidirectional Forwarding
         Detection (BFD) for the Pseudowire Virtual Circuit
         Connectivity Verification (VCCV)", draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-bfd-03
         (work in progress), February 2009.

   [15]  Vigoureux, M., Ward, D., and M. Betts, "Requirements for OAM in
         MPLS Transport Networks",
         draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-requirements-01 (work in progress),
         March 2009.

   [16]  Niven-Jenkins, B., Brungard, D., Betts, M., Sprecher, N., and
         S. Ueno, "MPLS-TP Requirements",
         draft-ietf-mpls-tp-requirements-06 (work in progress),
         April 2009.

   [17]  International Telecommunication Union, "Generic Functional
         Architecture of Transport Networks", ITU-T G.805, March 2000.

   [18]  Ohta, H., "Assignment of the 'OAM Alert Label' for
         Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS) Operation and
         Maintenance (OAM) Functions", RFC 3429, November 2002.






Bocci, et al.           Expires November 1, 2009               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft                G-ACh and GAL                   April 2009


Authors' Addresses

   Matthew Bocci (editor)
   Alcatel-Lucent
   Voyager Place, Shoppenhangers Road
   Maidenhead, Berks  SL6 2PJ
   UK

   Email: matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com


   Martin Vigoureux (editor)
   Alcatel-Lucent
   Route de Villejust
   Nozay,   91620
   France

   Email: martin.vigoureux@alcatel-lucent.com


   George Swallow
   Cisco


   Email: swallow@cisco.com


   David Ward
   Cisco

   Email: dward@cisco.com


   Stewart Bryant
   Cisco

   Email: stbryant@cisco.com


   Rahul Aggarwal
   Juniper Networks

   Email: rahul@juniper.net








Bocci, et al.           Expires November 1, 2009               [Page 19]


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