[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/