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

Versions: (draft-swallow-mpls-tp-identifiers) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 RFC 6370

MPLS Working Group                                              M. Bocci
Internet-Draft                                            Alcatel-Lucent
Intended status: Standards Track                              G. Swallow
Expires: January 22, 2012                                          Cisco
                                                                 E. Gray
                                                                Ericsson
                                                           July 21, 2011


                          MPLS-TP Identifiers
                   draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers-07

Abstract

   This document specifies an initial set of identifiers to be used in
   the Transport Profile of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS-TP).
   The MPLS-TP requirements (RFC 5654) require that the elements and
   objects in an MPLS-TP environment are able to be configured and
   managed without a control plane.  In such an environment many
   conventions for defining identifiers are possible.  This document
   defines identifiers for MPLS-TP management and OAM functions
   compatible with IP/MPLS conventions.

   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 Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge
   (PWE3) architectures to support the capabilities and functionalities
   of a packet transport network as defined by the ITU-T.

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 January 22, 2012.

Copyright Notice



Bocci, et al.           Expires January 22, 2012                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft             MPLS-TP Identifiers                 July 2011


   Copyright (c) 2011 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.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.2.  Requirements Language  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.3.  Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Named Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Uniquely Identifying an Operator - the Global_ID . . . . . . .  5
   4.  Node and Interface Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   5.  MPLS-TP Tunnel and LSP Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     5.1.  MPLS-TP Point to Point Tunnel Identifiers  . . . . . . . .  8
     5.2.  MPLS-TP LSP Identifiers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       5.2.1.  MPLS-TP Co-Routed Bidirectional LSP Identifiers  . . .  9
       5.2.2.  MPLS-TP Associated Bidirectional LSP Identifiers . . .  9
     5.3.  Mapping to RSVP Signaling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   6.  Pseudowire Path Identifiers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   7.  Maintenance Identifiers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     7.1.  Maintenance Entity Group Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       7.1.1.  MPLS-TP Section MEG_IDs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       7.1.2.  MPLS-TP LSP MEG_IDs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       7.1.3.  Pseudowire MEG_IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     7.2.  Maintenance Entity Group End Point Identifiers . . . . . . 14
       7.2.1.  MPLS-TP Section MEP_IDs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       7.2.2.  MPLS-TP LSP_MEP_ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       7.2.3.  MEP_IDs for Pseudowires  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     7.3.  Maintenance Entity Group Intermediate Point Identifiers  . 15
   8.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   9.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17





Bocci, et al.           Expires January 22, 2012                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft             MPLS-TP Identifiers                 July 2011


1.  Introduction

   This document specifies an initial set of identifiers to be used in
   the Transport Profile of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS-TP).
   The MPLS-TP requirements (RFC 5654) [7] require that the elements and
   objects in an MPLS-TP environment are able to be configured and
   managed without a control plane.  In such an environment many
   conventions for defining identifiers are possible.  This document
   defines identifiers for MPLS-TP management and OAM functions
   compatible with IP/MPLS conventions.  That is, the identifiers have
   been chosen to be compatible with existing IP, MPLS, GMPLS, and
   Pseudowire definitions.

   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 Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge
   (PWE3) architectures to support the capabilities and functionalities
   of a packet transport network as defined by the ITU-T.

1.1.  Terminology

   AII: Attachment Interface Identifier

   ASN: Autonomous System Number

   EGP: Exterior Gateway Protocol

   FEC: Forwarding Equivalence Class

   GMPLS: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching

   IGP: Interior Gateway Protocol

   LSP: Label Switched Path

   LSR: Label Switching Router

   MEG: Maintenance Entity Group

   MEP: Maintenance Entity Group End Point

   MIP: Maintenance Entity Group Intermediate Point

   MPLS: Multi-Protocol Label Switching

   NNI: Network-to-Network Interface




Bocci, et al.           Expires January 22, 2012                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft             MPLS-TP Identifiers                 July 2011


   OAM: Operations, Administration and Maintenance

   P2P: Point to Point

   PW: Pseudowire

   RSVP: Resource Reservation Protocol

   RSVP-TE: RSVP Traffic Engineering

   SPME: Sub Path Maintenance Entities

   S-PE: Switching Provider Edge

   T-PE: Terminating Provider Edge

1.2.  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].

1.3.  Notational Conventions

   All multiple-word atomic identifiers use underscores (_) between the
   words to join the words.  Many of the identifiers are composed of a
   set of other identifiers.  These are expressed by listing the latter
   identifiers joined with double-colon, "::", notation.

   Where the same identifier type is used multiple times in a
   concatenation, they are qualified by a prefix joined to the
   identifier by a dash (-).  For example A1-Node_ID is the Node_ID of a
   node referred to as A1.

   The notation defines a preferred ordering of the fields.
   Specifically the designation A1 is used to indicate the lower sort
   order of a field or set of fields and Z9 is used to indicate the
   higher sort order of the same.  The sort is either alphanumeric or
   numeric depending on the field's definition.  Where the sort applies
   to a group of fields, those fields are grouped with {...}.

   Note, however, that the uniqueness of an identifier does not depend
   on the ordering, but rather, upon the uniqueness and scoping of the
   fields that compose the identifier.  Further the preferred ordering
   is not intended to constrain protocol designs by dictating a
   particular field sequence (for example see Section 5.2.1) or even
   what fields appear in which objects (for example see Section 5.3).




Bocci, et al.           Expires January 22, 2012                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft             MPLS-TP Identifiers                 July 2011


2.  Named Entities

   In order to configure, operate and manage a transport network based
   on the MPLS Transport Profile, a number of entities require
   identification.  Identifiers for the following entities are defined
   in this document:

      *  Global_ID

      *  Node

      *  Interface

      *  Tunnel

      *  LSP

      *  PW

      *  MEG

      *  MEP

      *  MIP

   Note that we have borrowed the term tunnel from RSVP-TE (RFC 3209)
   [2] where it is used to describe an entity that provides a logical
   association between a source and destination LSR.  The tunnel in turn
   is instantiated by one or more LSPs, where the additional LSPs are
   used for protection or re-grooming of the tunnel.


3.  Uniquely Identifying an Operator - the Global_ID

   The Global_ID is defined to uniquely identify an operator.  RFC 5003
   [3] defines a globally unique Attachment Interface Identifier (AII).
   That AII is composed of three parts, a Global_ID which uniquely
   identifies an operator, a prefix, and finally, an attachment circuit
   identifier.  We have chosen to use that Global ID for MPLS-TP.
   Quoting from RFC 5003, section 3.2, "The global ID can contain the
   2-octet or 4-octet value of the operator's Autonomous System Number
   (ASN).  It is expected that the global ID will be derived from the
   globally unique ASN of the autonomous system hosting the PEs
   containing the actual AIIs.  The presence of a global ID based on the
   operator's ASN ensures that the AII will be globally unique."

   A Global_ID is an unsigned 32-bit value and MUST be derived from a
   4-octet AS number assigned to the operator.  Note that 2-octet AS



Bocci, et al.           Expires January 22, 2012                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft             MPLS-TP Identifiers                 July 2011


   numbers have been incorporated in the 4-octet by placing the 2-octet
   AS number, in the low-order octets and setting the two high-order
   octets to zero.

   ASN 0 is reserved and cannot be assigned to an operator.  An
   identifier containing a Global_ID of zero means that no Global_ID is
   specified.  Note that a Global_ID of zero is limited to entities
   contained within a single operator and MUST NOT be used across an
   NNI.

   The Global_ID is used solely to provide a globally unique context for
   other MPLS-TP identifiers.  While the AS Number used in the Global_ID
   MUST be one which the operator is entitled to use, the use of the
   Global_ID is not related to the use of the ASN in protocols such as
   BGP.


4.  Node and Interface Identifiers

   An LSR requires identification of the node itself and of its
   interfaces.  An interface is the attachment point to a server
   (sub-)layer, e.g., MPLS-TP section or MPLS-TP tunnel.

   We call the identifier associated with a node a Node Identifier
   (Node_ID).  The Node_ID is a unique 32-bit value assigned by the
   operator within the scope of a Global_ID.  The structure of the
   Node_ID is operator specific and is outside the scope of this
   document.  However, the value zero is reserved and MUST NOT be used.
   Where IPv4 addresses are used, it may be convenient to use the Node's
   IPv4 loopback address as the Node_ID, however the Node_ID does not
   need to have any association with the IPv4 address space used in the
   operator's IGP or EGP.  Where IPv6 addresses are used exclusively, a
   32-bit value unique within the scope of a Global_ID is assigned.

   An LSR can support multiple layers (e.g. hierarchical LSPs) and the
   Node_ID belongs to the multiple layer context i.e. it is applicable
   to all LSPs or PWs that originate on, have a intermediate point on,
   or terminate on the node.

   In situations where a Node_ID needs to be globally unique, this is
   accomplished by prefixing the identifier with the operator's
   Global_ID.

   The term interface is used for the attachment point to an MPLS-TP
   section.  Within the context of a particular node, we call the
   identifier associated with an interface an Interface Number (IF_Num).
   The IF_Num is a 32-bit unsigned integer assigned by the operator and
   MUST be unique within the scope of a Node_ID.  The IF_Num value 0 has



Bocci, et al.           Expires January 22, 2012                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft             MPLS-TP Identifiers                 July 2011


   special meaning (see Section 7.3, MIP Identifiers) and MUST NOT be
   used to identify an MPLS-TP interface.

   Note that IF_Num has no relation with the ifNum object defined in RFC
   2863 [8].  Further, no mapping is mandated between IF_Num and ifIndex
   in RFC 2863.

   An Interface Identifier (IF_ID) identifies an interface uniquely
   within the context of a Global_ID.  It is formed by concatenating the
   Node_ID with the IF_Num. That is, an IF_ID is a 64-bit identifier
   formed as Node_ID::IF_Num.

   This convention was chosen to allow compatibility with GMPLS.  The
   GMPLS signaling functional description [4] requires interface
   identification.  GMPLS allows three formats for the Interface_ID.
   The third format consists of an IPv4 Address plus a 32-bit unsigned
   integer for the specific interface.  The format defined for MPLS-TP
   is consistent with this format, but uses the Node_ID instead of an
   IPv4 Address.

   If an IF_ID needs to be globally unique, this is accomplished by
   prefixing the identifier with the operator's Global_ID.

   Note that MPLS-TP supports hierarchical sections.  The attachment
   point to a MPLS-TP Section at any (sub-)layer requires a node-unique
   IF_Num.


5.  MPLS-TP Tunnel and LSP Identifiers

   In MPLS the actual transport of packets is provided by label switched
   paths (LSPs).  A transport service may be composed of multiple LSPs.
   Further the LSPs providing a service may change over time due to
   protection and restoration events.  In order to clearly identify the
   service we use the term "MPLS-TP Tunnel" or simply "tunnel" for a
   service provided by (for example) a working LSP and protected by a
   protection LSP.  The Tunnel Identifier (Tunnel_ID) identifies the
   transport service and provides a stable binding to the client in the
   face of changes in the data plane LSPs used to provide the service
   due to protection or restoration events.  This section defines an
   MPLS-TP Tunnel_ID to uniquely identify a tunnel, and an MPLS-TP LSP
   Identifier (LSP_ID) to uniquely identify an LSP associated with a
   tunnel.

   For the case where multiple LSPs (for example) are used to support a
   single service with a common set of end-points, using the Tunnel_ID
   allows for a trivial mapping between the server and client layers,
   providing a common service identifier which may be either defined by,



Bocci, et al.           Expires January 22, 2012                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft             MPLS-TP Identifiers                 July 2011


   or used by, the client.

   Note that this usage is not intended to constrain protection schemes,
   and may be used to identify any service (protected or unprotected)
   that may appear to the client as a single service attachment point.
   Keeping the Tunnel_ID consistent across working and protection LSPs
   is a useful construct currently employed within GMPLS.  However, the
   Tunnel_ID for a protection LSP MAY differ from that used by its
   corresponding working LSP.

5.1.  MPLS-TP Point to Point Tunnel Identifiers

   At each endpoint a tunnel is uniquely identified by the endpoint's
   Node_ID and a locally assigned tunnel number.  Specifically a Tunnel
   Number (Tunnel_Num) is a 16-bit unsigned integer unique within the
   context of the Node_ID.  The motivation for each endpoint having its
   own tunnel number is to allow a compact form for the MEP_ID.  See
   Section 7.2.2.

   Having two tunnel numbers also serves to simplify other signaling
   (e.g., setup of associated bidirectional tunnels as described in
   Section 5.3).

   The concatenation of the two endpoint identifiers serves as the full
   identifier.  Using the A1/Z9 convention the format of a Tunnel_ID is:

      A1-{Node_ID::Tunnel_Num}::Z9-{Node_ID::Tunnel_Num}

   Where the Tunnel_ID needs to be globally unique, this is accomplished
   by using globally unique Node_IDs as defined above.  Thus a globally
   unique Tunnel_ID becomes:

      A1-{Global_ID::Node_ID::Tunnel_Num}::Z9-{Global_ID::Node_ID::
      Tunnel_Num}

   When an MPLS-TP Tunnel is configured, it MUST be assigned a unique
   IF_ID at each endpoint.  As usual, the IF_ID is composed of the local
   Node_ID concatenated with a 32-bit IF_Num.

5.2.  MPLS-TP LSP Identifiers

   This section defines identifiers for MPLS-TP co-routed bidirectional
   and associated bidirectional LSPs.  Note that MPLS-TP Sub Path
   Maintenance Entities (SPMEs) as defined in RFC 5921 [9] are also LSPs
   and use these same forms of identifiers.






Bocci, et al.           Expires January 22, 2012                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft             MPLS-TP Identifiers                 July 2011


5.2.1.  MPLS-TP Co-Routed Bidirectional LSP Identifiers

   A co-routed bidirectional LSP can be uniquely identified by a single
   LSP number within the scope of an MPLS-TP Tunnel_ID.  Specifically an
   LSP Number (LSP_Num) is a 16-bit unsigned integer unique within the
   Tunnel_ID.  Thus the format of an MPLS-TP co-routed bidirectional
   LSP_ID is:

      A1-{Node_ID::Tunnel_Num}::Z9-{Node_ID::Tunnel_Num}::LSP_Num

   Note that the uniqueness of identifiers does not depend on the A1/Z9
   sort ordering.  Thus the identifier

      Z9-{Node_ID::Tunnel_Num}::A1-{Node_ID::Tunnel_Num}::LSP_Num

   is synonymous with the one above.

   At the dataplane level, a co-routed bidirectional LSP is composed of
   two unidirectional LSPs traversing the same links in opposite
   directions.  Since a co-routed bidirectional LSP is provisioned or
   signaled as a single entity, a single LSP_Num is used for both
   unidirectional LSPs.  The unidirectional LSPs can be referenced by
   the identifiers:

      A1-Node_ID::A1-Tunnel_Num::LSP_Num::Z9-Node_ID and

      Z9-Node_ID::Z9-Tunnel_Num::LSP_Num::A1-Node_ID respectively.

   Where the LSP_ID needs to be globally unique, this is accomplished by
   using globally unique Node_IDs as defined above.  Thus a globally
   unique LSP_ID becomes:

      A1-{Global_ID::Node_ID::Tunnel_Num}::Z9-{Global_ID::
      Node_ID::Tunnel_Num}::LSP_Num

5.2.2.  MPLS-TP Associated Bidirectional LSP Identifiers

   For an associated bidirectional LSP each of the unidirectional LSPs
   from A1 to Z9 and Z9 to A1 require LSP_Nums.  Each unidirectional LSP
   is uniquely identified by a single LSP number within the scope of the
   ingress's Tunnel_Num. Specifically an LSP Number (LSP_Num) is a 16-
   bit unsigned integer unique within the scope of the ingress's
   Tunnel_Num. Thus the format of an MPLS-TP associated bidirectional
   LSP_ID is:

      A1-{Node_ID::Tunnel_Num::LSP_Num}::





Bocci, et al.           Expires January 22, 2012                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft             MPLS-TP Identifiers                 July 2011


      Z9-{Node_ID::Tunnel_Num::LSP_Num}

   At the dataplane level, an associated bidirectional LSP is composed
   of two unidirectional LSPs between two nodes in opposite directions.
   The unidirectional LSPs may be referenced by the identifiers:

      A1-Node_ID::A1-Tunnel_Num::A1-LSP_Num::Z9-Node_ID and

      Z9-Node_ID::Z9-Tunnel_Num::Z9-LSP_Num::A1-Node_ID respectively.

   Where the LSP_ID needs to be globally unique, this is accomplished by
   using globally unique Node_IDs as defined above.  Thus a globally
   unique LSP_ID becomes:

      A1-{Global_ID::Node_ID::Tunnel_Num::LSP_Num}::
      Z9-{Global_ID::Node_ID::Tunnel_Num::LSP_Num}

5.3.  Mapping to RSVP Signaling

   This section is informative and exists to help understand the
   structure of the LSP IDs.

   GMPLS [5] is based on RSVP-TE [2].  This section defines the mapping
   from an MPLS-TP LSP_ID to RSVP-TE.  At this time, RSVP-TE has yet to
   be extended to accommodate Global_IDs.  Thus a mapping is only made
   for the network unique form of the LSP_ID and assumes that the
   operator has chosen to derive its Node_IDs from valid IPv4 addresses.

   GMPLS and RSVP-TE signaling use a 5-tuple to uniquely identify an LSP
   within a operator's network.  This tuple is composed of a Tunnel
   Endpoint Address, Tunnel_ID, Extended Tunnel ID, and Tunnel Sender
   Address and (RSVP) LSP_ID.  RFC 3209 allows some flexibility in how
   the Extended Tunnel ID is chosen and a direct mapping is not
   mandated.  One convention that is often used, however, is to populate
   this field with the same value as the Tunnel Sender Address.  The
   examples below follow that convention.  Note that these are only
   examples.

   For a co-routed bidirectional LSP signaled from A1 to Z9, the mapping
   to the GMPLS 5-tuple is as follows:

      *  Tunnel Endpoint Address = Z9-Node_ID

      *  Tunnel_ID = A1-Tunnel_Num

      *  Extended Tunnel_ID = A1-Node_ID





Bocci, et al.           Expires January 22, 2012               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft             MPLS-TP Identifiers                 July 2011


      *  Tunnel Sender Address = A1-Node_ID

      *  (RSVP) LSP_ID = LSP_Num


   An associated bidirectional LSP between two nodes A1 and Z9 consists
   of two unidirectional LSPs, one from A1 to Z9 and one from Z9 to A1.

   In situations where a mapping to the RSVP-TE 5-tuples is required,
   the following mappings are used.  For the A1 to Z9 LSP the mapping
   would be:

      *  Tunnel Endpoint Address = Z9-Node_ID

      *  Tunnel_ID = A1-Tunnel_Num

      *  Extended Tunnel_ID = A1-Node_ID

      *  Tunnel Sender Address = A1-Node_ID

      *  (RSVP) LSP_ID = A1-LSP_Num


   Likewise, the Z9 to A1 LSP, the mapping would be:

      *  Tunnel Endpoint Address = A1-Node_ID

      *  Tunnel_ID = Z9-Tunnel_Num

      *  Extended Tunnel_ID = Z9-Node_ID

      *  Tunnel Sender Address = Z9-Node_ID

      *  (RSVP) LSP_ID = Z9-LSP_Num


6.  Pseudowire Path Identifiers

   Pseudowire signaling (RFC 4447 [6]) defines two FECs used to signal
   pseudowires.  Of these, FEC Type 129 along with AII Type 2 as defined
   in RFC 5003 [3] fits the identification requirements of MPLS-TP.

   In an MPLS-TP environment, a PW is identified by a set of identifiers
   which can be mapped directly to the elements required by FEC 129 and
   AII Type 2.  To distinguish this identifier from other Pseudowire
   Identifiers, we call this a Pseudowire Path Identifier (PW_Path_ID).

   The AII Type 2 is composed of three fields.  These are the Global_ID,



Bocci, et al.           Expires January 22, 2012               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft             MPLS-TP Identifiers                 July 2011


   the Prefix, and the AC_ID.  The Global_ID used in this document is
   identical to the Global_ID defined in RFC 5003.  The Node_ID is used
   as the Prefix.  The AC_ID is as defined in RFC 5003.

   To complete the FEC 129, all that is required is an Attachment Group
   Identifier (AGI).  That field is exactly as specified in RFC 4447.  A
   (bidirectional) pseudowire consists of a pair of unidirectional LSPs,
   one in each direction.  Thus for signaling, FEC 129 has a notion of
   Source AII (SAII) and Target AII (TAII).  These terms are used
   relative to the direction of the LSP.

   In a purely configured environment when referring to the entire PW,
   this distinction is not critical.  That is a FEC 129 of AGIa::AIIb::
   AIIc is equivalent to AGIa::AIIc::AIIb.

   We note that in a signaled environment, the required convention in
   RFC 4447 is that at a particular endpoint, the AII associated with
   that endpoint comes first.  The complete PW_Path_ID is:

      AGI::A1-{Global_ID::Node_ID::AC_ID}::
      Z9-{Global_ID::Node_ID::AC_ID}.

   In a signaled environment the LSP from A1 to Z9 would be initiated
   with a label request from A1 to Z9 with the fields of the FEC 129
   completed as follows:

      AGI = AGI
      SAII = A1-{Global_ID::Node_ID::AC_ID}
      TAII = Z9-{Global_ID::Node_ID::AC_ID}

   The LSP from Z9 to A1 would signaled with:

      AGI = AGI
      SAII = Z9-{Global_ID::Node_ID::AC_ID}
      TAII = A1-{Global_ID::Node_ID::AC_ID}


7.  Maintenance Identifiers

   In MPLS-TP a Maintenance Entity Group (MEG) represents an Entity that
   requires management and defines a relationship between a set of
   maintenance points.  A maintenance point is either a Maintenance
   Entity Group End-point (MEP), a Maintenance Entity Group Intermediate
   Point (MIP), or a Pseudowire Segment Endpoint.  Within the context of
   a MEG, MEPs and MIPs must be uniquely identified.  This section
   defines a means of uniquely identifying Maintenance Entity Groups,
   Maintenance Entities and uniquely defining MEPs and MIPs within the
   context of a Maintenance Entity Group.



Bocci, et al.           Expires January 22, 2012               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft             MPLS-TP Identifiers                 July 2011


7.1.  Maintenance Entity Group Identifiers

   Maintenance Entity Group Identifiers (MEG_IDs) are required for
   MPLS-TP sections, LSPs and Pseudowires.  The formats were chosen to
   follow the IP compatible identifiers defined above.

7.1.1.  MPLS-TP Section MEG_IDs

   MPLS-TP allows a hierarchy of sections.  See "MPLS-TP Data Plane
   Architecture" (RFC 5960)[10].  Sections above layer 0 are MPLS-TP
   LSPs.  These use their MPLS-TP LSP MEG IDs defined in Section 7.1.2.

   IP compatible MEG_IDs for MPLS-TP sections at layer 0 are formed by
   concatenating the two IF_IDs of the corresponding section using the
   A1/Z9 ordering.  For example:

      A1-IF_ID::Z9-IF_ID

   Where the Section_MEG_ID needs to be globally unique, this is
   accomplished by using globally unique Node_IDs as defined above.
   Thus a globally unique Section_MEG_ID becomes:

      A1-{Global_ID::IF_ID}::Z9-{Global_ID::IF_ID}

7.1.2.  MPLS-TP LSP MEG_IDs

   A MEG pertains to a unique MPLS-TP LSP.  IP compatible MEG_IDs for
   MPLS-TP LSPs are simply the corresponding LSP_IDs, however, the A1/Z9
   ordering MUST be used.  For bidirectional co-routed LSPs the format
   of the LSP_ID is found in Section 5.2.1.  For associated
   bidirectional LSPs the format is in Section 5.2.2.

   We note that while the two identifiers are syntactically identical,
   they have different semantics.  This semantic difference needs to be
   made clear.  For instance if both a MPLS-TP LSP_ID and MPLS-TP LSP
   MEG_IDs are to be encoded in TLVs, different types need to be
   assigned for these two identifiers.

7.1.3.  Pseudowire MEG_IDs

   For Pseudowires a MEG pertains to a single PW.  The IP compatible
   MEG_ID for a PW is simply the corresponding PW_Path_ID, however, the
   A1/Z9 ordering MUST be used.  The PW_Path_ID is described in
   Section 6.  We note that while the two identifiers are syntactically
   identical, they have different semantics.  This semantic difference
   needs to be made clear.  For instance if both a PW_Path_ID and a
   PW_MEG_ID are to be encoded in TLVs, different types need to be
   assigned for these two identifiers.



Bocci, et al.           Expires January 22, 2012               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft             MPLS-TP Identifiers                 July 2011


7.2.  Maintenance Entity Group End Point Identifiers

7.2.1.  MPLS-TP Section MEP_IDs

   IP compatible MEP_IDs for MPLS-TP sections above layer 0 are their
   MPLS-TP LSP_MEP_IDs.  See Section 7.2.2.

   IP compatible MEP_IDs for MPLS-TP sections at layer 0 are simply the
   IF_IDs of each end of the section.  For example, for a section whose
   MEG_ID is

      A1-IF_ID::Z9-IF_ID

   the Section MEP_ID at A1 would be

      A1-IF_ID

   and the Section MEP_ID at Z9 would be

      Z9-IF_ID.

   Where the Section MEP_ID needs to be globally unique, this is
   accomplished by using globally unique Node_IDs as defined above.
   Thus a globally unique Section MEP_ID becomes

      Global_ID::IF_ID.

7.2.2.  MPLS-TP LSP_MEP_ID

   In order to automatically generate MEP_IDs for MPLS-TP LSPs, we use
   the elements of identification that are unique to an endpoint.  This
   ensures that MEP_IDs are unique for all LSPs within a operator.  When
   Tunnels or LSPs cross operator boundaries, these are made unique by
   pre-pending them with the operator's Global_ID.

   The MPLS-TP LSP_MEP_ID is

      Node_ID::Tunnel_Num::LSP_Num

   where the Node_ID is the node in which the MEP is located and
   Tunnel_Num is the tunnel number unique to that node.  In the case of
   co-routed bidirectional LSPs, the single LSP_Num is used at both
   ends.  In the case of associated bidirectional LSPs, the LSP_Num is
   the one unique to where the MEP resides.

   In situations where global uniqueness is required this becomes:





Bocci, et al.           Expires January 22, 2012               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft             MPLS-TP Identifiers                 July 2011


      Global_ID::Node_ID::Tunnel_Num::LSP_Num

7.2.3.  MEP_IDs for Pseudowires

   Like MPLS-TP LSPs, Pseudowire endpoints (T-PEs) require MEP_IDs.  In
   order to automatically generate MEP_IDs for PWs, we simply use the
   AGI plus the AII associated with that end of the PW.  Thus a MEP_ID
   for a Pseudowire T-PE takes the form

      AGI::Global_ID::Node_ID::AC_ID

   where the Node_ID is the node in which the MEP is located and the
   AC_ID is the AC_ID of the Pseudowire at that node.

7.3.  Maintenance Entity Group Intermediate Point Identifiers

   For a MIP which is associated with particular interface, we simply
   use the IF_ID (see Section 4) of the interfaces which are cross-
   connected.  This allows, MIPs to be independently identified in one
   node where a per-interface MIP model is used.  If only a per node MIP
   model is used then one MIP is configured.  In this case the MIP_ID is
   formed using the Node_ID and an IF_Num of 0.


8.  IANA Considerations

   There are no IANA actions resulting from this document.


9.  Security Considerations

   This document describes an information model and, as such, does not
   introduce security concerns.  Protocol specifications that describe
   use of this information model, however, may introduce security risks
   and concerns about authentication of participants.  For this reason,
   the writers of protocol specifications for the purpose of describing
   implementation of this information model need to describe security
   and authentication concerns that may be raised by the particular
   mechanisms defined and how those concerns may be addressed.

   Uniqueness of the identifiers from this document is guaranteed by the
   assigner (e.g., a Global_ID is unique based on the assignment of ASNs
   from IANA and both a Node_ID and a IF_Num are unique based on the
   assignment by an operator).  Failure by an assigner to use unique
   values within the specified scoping for any of the identifiers
   defined herein could result in operational problems.  For example and
   non-unique MEP value could result in failure to detect a mis-merged
   LSP.



Bocci, et al.           Expires January 22, 2012               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft             MPLS-TP Identifiers                 July 2011


   Protocol specifications that utilize the identifiers defined herein
   need to consider the implications of guessable identifiers and, where
   there is a security implication, SHOULD give advice on how to make
   identifiers less guessable.


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]   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.

   [3]   Metz, C., Martini, L., Balus, F., and J. Sugimoto, "Attachment
         Individual Identifier (AII) Types for Aggregation", RFC 5003,
         September 2007.

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

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

   [6]   Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., Smith, T., and G. Heron,
         "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label Distribution
         Protocol (LDP)", RFC 4447, April 2006.

10.2.  Informative References

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

   [8]   McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group MIB",
         RFC 2863, June 2000.

   [9]   Bocci, M., Bryant, S., Frost, D., Levrau, L., and L. Berger, "A
         Framework for MPLS in Transport Networks", RFC 5921, July 2010.

   [10]  Frost, D., Bryant, S., and M. Bocci, "MPLS Transport Profile
         Data Plane Architecture", RFC 5960, August 2010.





Bocci, et al.           Expires January 22, 2012               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft             MPLS-TP Identifiers                 July 2011


Authors' Addresses

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

   Email: matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com


   George Swallow
   Cisco

   Email: swallow@cisco.com


   Eric Gray
   Ericsson
   900 Chelmsford Street
   Lowell, Massachussetts  01851-8100

   Email: eric.gray@ericsson.com




























Bocci, et al.           Expires January 22, 2012               [Page 17]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/