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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 RFC 6002

Internet Draft                                         Lou Berger (LabN)
Updates: 3471, 3473, 3945, 4202                       Don Fedyk (Nortel)
Category: Standards Track
Expiration Date: February 8, 2009

                                                          August 8, 2008

   Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Data Channel Switching Capable (DCSC) and
                      Channel Set Label Extensions

             draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-00.txt

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

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

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

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

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on February 8, 2009.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

Abstract

   This document describes two technology independent extensions to
   Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching.  The first extension
   defines the new switching type Data Channel Switching Capable.  Data
   Channel Switching Capable interfaces are able to support switching of
   the whole digital channel presented on single channel interfaces.
   The second extension defines a new type of generalized label and
   updates related objects.  The new label is called the Generalized
   Channel_Set Label and allows more than one data plane label to be
   controlled as part of an LSP.





Berger & Fedyk               Standards Track                    [Page 1]


Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-00.txt  August 8, 2008


Table of Contents

 1      Introduction  ..............................................   3
 1.1    Conventions used in this document  .........................   3
 2      Data Channel Switching  ....................................   3
 3      Generalized Channel_Set Label Related Formats  .............   4
 3.1    Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST Object  ..............   4
 3.2    Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object  ......................   4
 3.3    Other Label related Objects  ...............................   7
 4      IANA Considerations  .......................................   7
 4.1    Data Channel Switching Type  ...............................   7
 4.2    Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST Object  ..............   7
 4.3    Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object  ......................   8
 5      Security Considerations  ...................................   8
 6      References  ................................................   8
 6.1    Normative References  ......................................   8
 6.2    Informative References  ....................................   9
 7      Acknowledgments  ...........................................   9
 8      Author's Addresses  ........................................  10
 9      Full Copyright Statement  ..................................  10
10      Intellectual Property  .....................................  10























Berger & Fedyk               Standards Track                    [Page 2]


Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-00.txt  August 8, 2008


1. Introduction

   This document describes two technology independent extensions to
   Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS).  Both of
   extensions were initially defined to in the context of Ethernet
   services, see [GMPLS-ESVCS] and [GMPLS-MEF-UNI], but are generic in
   nature and may be useful to any switching technology controlled via
   GMPLS.

   The first extension defines a new switching type, which is called
   Data Channel Switching Capable, or DCSC.  DCSC interfaces are able to
   support switching of the whole digital channel presented on single
   channel interfaces.  The second extension defines a new type of
   generalized label and updates related objects.  The new label is
   called the Generalized Channel_Set Label and allows more than one
   data plane label to be controlled as part of an LSP.


1.1. Conventions used in this document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].


2. Data Channel Switching

   Current GMPLS switching types are defined in [RFC3945] and [RFC3471]
   and support switching at the packet (PSC), frame (L2SC), time-slot
   (TDM), frequency (LSC) and fiber (FSC) granularities.  One type of
   switching that is not well represented in this current set switching
   that takes all data received on an ingress port and switches it
   through a network to an egress port.  While there are similarities
   between this level of switching and the "opaque single wavelength"
   case described in Section 3.5 of [RFC4202], such port-to-port
   switching is not limited to the optical switching technology implied
   by the LSC type. Therefore, a new switching type is defined.

   The new switching type is called Data Channel Switching Capable
   (DCSC). (Port switching seems a more intuitive name, but it collides
   with PSC so isn't used.)  DCSC interfaces are able to support
   switching of the whole digital channel presented on single channel
   interfaces.  Interfaces that inherently support multiple channels,
   e.g., WDM and channelized TDM interfaces, are specifically excluded
   from this type. Any interface that can be represented as a single
   digital channel are included.  Examples include concatenated TDM and
   line encoded interfaces.  Framed interfaces may also be included when
   they support switching on an interface granularity.



Berger & Fedyk               Standards Track                    [Page 3]


Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-00.txt  August 8, 2008


   DCSC is represented in GMPLS, see [RFC3471] and [RFC4202], using the
   value TBA (by IANA).

   Port labels, as defined in [RFC3471], SHOULD be used for LSPs
   signaled using the DCSC Switching Type.


3. Generalized Channel_Set Label Related Formats

   This section defines a new type of generalized label and updates
   related objects.  This section updates the label related definitions
   of [RFC3473].  The ability to communicate more than one label as part
   of the same LSP was motivated by the support for the communication of
   one or more VLAN IDs, but the formats defined in this section are not
   technology specific and may be useful for other switching
   technologies.


3.1. Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST Object

   The Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST object is used to indicate
   that the Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object is to be used with the
   associated LSP.  The format of the Generalized Channel_Set
   LABEL_REQUEST object is the same as the Generalized LABEL_REQUEST
   object and uses of C-Type of TBA.


3.2. Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object

   The Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object communicates one or more
   labels, all of which can be used equivalently in the data path
   associated with a single LSP.  The format of the Generalized
   Channel_Set LABEL Object is based on the LABEL_SET object defined in
   [RFC3473].  It differs from the the LABEL_SET object in that the full
   set may be represented in a single object rather than the multiple
   objects required by the [RFC3473] LABEL_SET object.  The object MUST
   be used on LSPs that use the Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST
   object.  The object MUST be processed per [RFC3473].  Make-before-
   break procedures, see [RFC3209], SHOULD be used when modifying the
   Channel_Set LABEL object.











Berger & Fedyk               Standards Track                    [Page 4]


Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-00.txt  August 8, 2008


   The format of the Generalized Channel_Set LABEL object is:

   o  Generalized Channel_Set LABEL object: Class = 16, C-Type = TBA (By
   IANA)

      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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                   Channel_Set Sub-Object 1                    |
      |                              ...                              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      :                               :                               :
      :                               :                               :
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                   Channel_Set Sub-Object N                    |
      |                              ...                              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The Channel_Set Sub-Object size is measured in bytes and MUST always
   be a multiple of 4, and at least 4, and has the following format:

      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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |    Action     |  Num Subchannels  |        Label Type         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                          Subchannel 1                         |
      |                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |       ...                     |                               :
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               :
      :                               :                               :
      :                               :                               :
      :                               :                               :
      :                               :                               :
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                          Subchannel N                         |
      |                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |           ...                 |         Padding               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Action: 8 bits

         See [RFC3471] for definition of actions.  Range actions SHOULD
         be used when possible to minimize the size of the Channel_Set
         LABEL Object.






Berger & Fedyk               Standards Track                    [Page 5]


Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-00.txt  August 8, 2008


      Number of Subchannels: 10 bits

         Indicates the number of subchannels carried in the sub-object.
         When the number of subchannels required exceeds the limit of
         the field, i.e., 1024, multiple Channel_Set Sub-Objects MUST be
         used.  Note that the size of the sub-object may result in a
         Path message being larger than a single unfragmented IP packet.
         See section 4.4 for an example of how this case may be handled.

         A value of zero (0) has special meaning and MAY be used in
         either the LABEL or UPSTREAM_LABEL object.  A value of zero (0)
         is used in a LABEL or UPSTREAM_LABEL object to indicate that
         the subchannel(s) used in the corresponding (downstream or
         upstream) direction MUST match the subchannel(s) carried in the
         reverse directions label object. When value of zero (0) is
         used, no Subchannels are included in the Channel_Set Sub-Object
         and only one Channel_Set Sub-Object may be present.  The zero
         (0) value MUST NOT be used in both the LABEL and UPSTREAM_LABEL
         object of the same LSP.

      Label Type: 14 bits

         See [RFC3473] for a description of this field.

      Subchannel: Variable

         See [RFC3471] for a description of this field. Note that this
         field may not be 32 bit aligned.

      Padding: Variable

         Padding is used to ensure that the length of a Channel_Set Sub-
         Object meets the multiple of 4 byte size requirement stated
         above.  The field is only required when the Subchannel field is
         not 32 bit aligned and the number of included Subchannel fields
         result in the Sub-Object not being 32 bit aligned.

         The Padding field MUST be included when the number of bits
         represented in all the Subchannel fields included in a
         Generalized Channel_Set Sub-Object result in the Sub-Object not
         being 32 bit aligned.  When present, the Padding field MUST
         have a length that results in the Sub-Object being 32 bit
         aligned.  When present, the Padding field MUST be set to a zero
         (0) value on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
         These bits SHOULD be passed through unmodified by transit
         nodes.





Berger & Fedyk               Standards Track                    [Page 6]


Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-00.txt  August 8, 2008


3.3. Other Label related Objects

   The previous section introduces a new LABEL object.  As such the
   formats of the other label related objects are also impacted.
   Processing of these objects is not modified and remain per their
   respective specifications.  The other label related objects are
   defined in [RFC3473] and include:
      - SUGGESTED_LABEL object
      - LABEL_SET object
      - ACCEPTABLE_LABEL_SET object
      - UPSTREAM_LABEL object
      - RECOVERY_LABEL object


4. IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to administer assignment of new values for
   namespaces defined in this document and reviewed in this section.


4.1. Data Channel Switching Type

   Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the assignment in
   the "Switching Types"  section of the "GMPLS Signaling Parameters"
   registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-
   parameters:

   Value   Type                                      Reference
   -----   ---------------------------               ---------
     125*   Data Channel Switching Capable (DCSC) [This document]

   (*) Suggested value.


4.2. Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST Object

   Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the assignment in
   the "Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types" section of the
   "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at
   http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters.











Berger & Fedyk               Standards Track                    [Page 7]


Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-00.txt  August 8, 2008


   A new class type for the existing LABEL_REQUEST Object class number
   (19) with the following definition:

      Class Types or C-Types:

        5* Generalized Channel_Set                  [This document]

   (*) Suggested value.


4.3. Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object

   Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the assignment in
   the "Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types" section of the
   "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at
   http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters.

   A new class type for the existing RSVP_LABEL Object class number (16)
   with the following definition:

      Class Types or C-Types:

        4* Generalized Channel_Set                  [This document]

   (*) Suggested value.


5. Security Considerations

   This document introduces new message object formats for use in GMPLS
   signaling [RFC3473].  It does not introduce any new signaling
   messages, nor change the relationship between LSRs that are adjacent
   in the control plane. As such, this document introduces no additional
   security considerations.  See [RFC3473] for relevant security
   considerations.


6. References

6.1. Normative References

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

   [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.




Berger & Fedyk               Standards Track                    [Page 8]


Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-00.txt  August 8, 2008


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

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

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

   [RFC4202] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing
             Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol
             Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005.



6.2. Informative References

   [GMPLS-ESVCS] Berger, L., Papadimitriou, P., Fedyk, D.,
                 "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support For Metro Ethernet
                 Forum and G.8011 Ethernet Service Switching", Work in
                 Progress, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-02.txt,
                 August 2008.

   [GMPLS-MEF-UNI]  Berger, L., Papadimitriou, P., Fedyk, D.,
                    "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support For Metro
                    Ethernet Forum and G.8011 User-Network Interface
                    (UNI)", Work in Progress,
                    draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-01.txt,
                    August 2008.


7. Acknowledgments

   Dimitri Papadimitriou provided substantial textual contributions to
   this document and coauthored earlier versions of this document.

   The authors would like to thank Evelyne Roch, Stephen Shew, and
   Adrian Farrel for their valuable comments.









Berger & Fedyk               Standards Track                    [Page 9]


Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-00.txt  August 8, 2008


8. Author's Addresses

   Lou Berger
   LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
   Phone: +1-301-468-9228
   Email: lberger@labn.net

   Don Fedyk
   Nortel Networks
   600 Technology Park Drive
   Billerica, MA, 01821
   Phone: +1-978-288-3041
   Email: dwfedyk@nortel.com

9. Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


10. Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed
   to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology
   described in this document or the extent to which any license
   under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it
   represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any
   such rights.  Information on the procedures with respect to rights
   in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use
   of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository
   at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.



Berger & Fedyk               Standards Track                   [Page 10]


Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-00.txt  August 8, 2008


   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention
   any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other
   proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required
   to implement this standard.  Please address the information to the
   IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).









































Berger & Fedyk               Standards Track                   [Page 11]

Generated on: Fri Aug 8 09:53:22 EDT 2008


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/