[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]
Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 RFC 6002
Internet Draft Lou Berger (LabN)
Updates: 3471, 3473, 3945, 4202 Don Fedyk (Alcatel-Lucent)
Category: Standards Track
Expiration Date: April 14, 2010
October 14, 2009
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Data Channel Switching Capable (DCSC) and
Channel Set Label Extensions
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-02.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 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/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 April 14, 2010.
Copyright and License 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).
Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 1]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-02.txt October 14, 2009
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
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.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ........................................... 3
1.1 Conventions used in this document ...................... 3
2 Data Channel Switching ................................. 3
2.1 Compatibility .......................................... 4
3 Generalized Channel_Set Label Related Formats .......... 4
3.1 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST Object ........... 5
3.2 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object ................... 5
3.3 Other Label related Objects ............................ 7
3.4 Compatibility .......................................... 8
4 IANA Considerations .................................... 8
4.1 Data Channel Switching Type ............................ 8
4.2 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST Object ........... 8
4.3 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object ................... 9
5 Security Considerations ................................ 9
6 References ............................................. 9
6.1 Normative References ................................... 9
6.2 Informative References ................................. 10
7 Acknowledgments ........................................ 11
8 Author's Addresses ..................................... 11
Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 2]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-02.txt October 14, 2009
1. Introduction
This document describes two technology independent extensions to
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS). Both of these
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 (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 is
switching that occurs when all data received on an ingress port is
switched 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. FSC is also similar, but it is restricted to
fiber ports and also supports multiple data channels with-in the
fiber port.
This document defines the new switching type called Data Channel
Switching Capable (DCSC). Port switching seems a more intuitive name,
but this naming collides with PSC so it 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
Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 3]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-02.txt October 14, 2009
include concatenated TDM and line encoded interfaces. Framed
interfaces may also be included when they support switching on an
interface granularity.
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. The DCSC Switching Type may
be used with the Generalized Label Request object, [RFC3473], or the
Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST Object defined below.
2.1. Compatibility
Transit and egress nodes that do not support the DCSC Switching Type
when receiving a Path message with a Label Request containing the
DCSC Switching Type will behave in the same way nodes generally
handle the case of an unsupported Switching Type. Specifically, per
[RFC3473], such nodes are required to generate a PathErr message,
with a "Routing problem/Unsupported Encoding" indication.
Ingress nodes initiating a Path message containing a Label Request
containing the DCSC Switching Type, receiving such a PathErr
messages, then notify the requesting application user as appropriate.
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. Simple concatenation of labels as is done in
[RFC4606] was deemed impractical given the large number of VLAN IDs
(up to 4096) that may need to be communicated. The formats defined
in this section are not technology specific and may be useful for
other switching technologies. The LABEL_SET object defined in
[RFC3473] serves as the foundation for the defined formats.
Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 4]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-02.txt October 14, 2009
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 a 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.
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 |
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 5]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-02.txt October 14, 2009
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.
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.
Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 6]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-02.txt October 14, 2009
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 might 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.
3.3. Other Label related Objects
The previous section introduced 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 remains 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
Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 7]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-02.txt October 14, 2009
3.4. Compatibility
Transit and egress nodes that do not support the Generalized
Channel_Set Label related formats will first receive a Path message
containing Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST object. When such a
node receives the Path message, per [RFC3209], it will send a PathErr
with the error code "Unknown object C_Type".
Ingress nodes initiating a Path message containing a Generalized
Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST object on receiving such a PathErr
messages, then notify the requesting application user as appropriate.
4. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to administer assignment of new values for
namespaces defined in this document and summarized in this section.
4.1. Data Channel Switching Type
Upon approval of this document, 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.
It should be noted that the assigned value should be reflected in
IANAGmplsSwitchingTypeTC at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ianagmplstc-mib.
4.2. Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST Object
Upon approval of this document, 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 8]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-02.txt October 14, 2009
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, 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. Additionally, the existing framework for MPLS and
GMPLS security is documented in [MPLS-SEC].
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels," RFC 2119.
Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 9]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-02.txt October 14, 2009
[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.
[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., 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.
[GMPLS-MEF-UNI] Berger, L., 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.
[MPLS-SEC] Fang, L., et al, "Security Framework for MPLS and
GMPLS Networks", Work in Progress,
draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework.
[RFC4606] Mannie, E., et al "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for Synchronous Optical
Network (SONET) and Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH)
Control", RFC 4606, August 2006.
Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 10]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-02.txt October 14, 2009
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.
8. Author's Addresses
Lou Berger
LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Phone: +1-301-468-9228
Email: lberger@labn.net
Don Fedyk
Alcatel-Lucent
Groton, MA, 01450
Phone: +1-978-467-5645
Email: donald.fedyk@alcatel-lucent.com
Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 11]
Generated on: Wed Oct 14 14:46:36 EDT 2009
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/