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

Versions: (draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs) 00 01 02 03 04 RFC 6004

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

                                                          August 8, 2008

       Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support For Metro Ethernet Forum
                 and G.8011 Ethernet Service Switching

                draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-02.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 a method for controlling two specific types
   of Ethernet switching via Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
   (GMPLS).  This document supports the types of switching implied by
   the Ethernet services that have been defined in the context of the
   Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) and International Telecommunication Union
   (ITU) G.8011.  Specifically, switching in support of Ethernet private
   line service and Ethernet virtual private line service.  Support for
   MEF and ITU defined parameters are also covered.  Some of the
   extensions defined in this document are generic in nature and not
   specific to Ethernet.





Berger & Fedyk               Standards Track                    [Page 1]


Internet-Draft  draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-02.txt   August 8, 2008


Table of Contents

 1      Introduction  ..............................................   3
 1.1    Overview  ..................................................   3
 1.2    Conventions used in this document  .........................   5
 2      Common Signaling Support  ..................................   5
 2.1    Ethernet Endpoint Identification  ..........................   5
 2.1.1  Endpoint ID TLV  ...........................................   6
 2.2    Connection Identification  .................................   7
 2.2.1  Procedures  ................................................   7
 2.3    Traffic Parameters  ........................................   7
 2.3.1  L2 Control Protocol TLV  ...................................   8
 2.4    Bundling and VLAN Identification  ..........................   9
 3      EPL Service  ...............................................   9
 3.1    EPL Service Parameters  ....................................  10
 4      EVPL Service  ..............................................  10
 4.1    EVPL Generalized Label Format  .............................  11
 4.2    Egress VLAN ID Control and VLAN ID preservation  ...........  11
 4.3    Single Call - Single LSP  ..................................  12
 4.4    Single Call - Multiple LSPs  ...............................  12
 5      IANA Considerations  .......................................  12
 5.1    Endpoint ID Attributes TLV  ................................  13
 5.2    Line LSP Encoding  .........................................  13
 6      Security Considerations  ...................................  13
 7      References  ................................................  13
 7.1    Normative References  ......................................  13
 7.2    Informative References  ....................................  14
 8      Acknowledgments  ...........................................  15
 9      Author's Addresses  ........................................  15
10      Full Copyright Statement  ..................................  16
11      Intellectual Property  .....................................  16










Berger & Fedyk               Standards Track                    [Page 2]


Internet-Draft  draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-02.txt   August 8, 2008


1. Introduction

   [MEF6] and [G.8011] provide parallel frameworks for defining network-
   oriented characteristics of Ethernet services in transport networks.
   The framework discusses general Ethernet connection characteristics,
   Ethernet User-Network Interfaces (UNIs) and Ethernet Network-Network
   Interfaces (NNIs). Within this framework, [G.8011.1] defines the
   Ethernet Private Line (EPL) service and [G.8011.2] defines the
   Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) service. [MEF6] covers both
   service types.  [MEF10.1] defines service parameters and [MEF11]
   provides UNI requirements and framework.

   [MEF6] and [G.8011] are focused on service interfaces and not the
   underlying technology used to support the service.  For example,
   [G.8011] refers to the defined services being transported over one of
   several possible "server layers".  This document focuses on the types
   of switching that may directly support these services and provides a
   method for GMPLS based control of such switching technologies.  This
   document defines the GMPLS extensions needed to support such
   switching, but does not define the UNI or External NNI (E-NNI)
   reference points.  See [GMPLS-MEF-UNI] for a description of the UNI
   reference point.  This document makes use of the traffic parameters
   defined in [ETH-TRAFFIC] and the generic extensions defined in
   [GMPLS-EXT].



1.1. Overview

   This document uses a common approach to supporting the switching
   implied by the Ethernet services defined in [MEF6], [G.8011.1] and
   [G.8011.2].  The approach builds on standard GMPLS mechanisms to
   deliver the required control capabilities. This document reuses the
   GMPLS mechanisms specified in [RFC3473] and [RFC4974].  The document
   uses the extensions defined in [GMPLS-EXT].

   Two types of connectivity between Ethernet endpoints are defined in
   [MEF6] and [G.8011]: point-to-point (P2P) and multipoint-to-
   multipoint (MP2MP). [MEF6] uses the term Ethernet Line (E-line) to
   refer to point-to-point virtual connections, and Ethernet LAN (E-LAN)
   to refer to multipoint-to-multipoint virtual connections.  [G.8011]
   also identifies point-to-multipoint (P2MP) as an area for "further
   study."  Within the context of GMPLS, support is defined for point-
   to-point unidirectional and bidirectional TE Label Switched Paths
   (LSPs), see [RFC3473], and unidirectional point-to-multipoint TE
   LSPs, see [RFC4875].

   Support for P2P and MP2MP service is required by [G.8011] and



Berger & Fedyk               Standards Track                    [Page 3]


Internet-Draft  draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-02.txt   August 8, 2008


   [MEF11].  Note that while [MEF11] requires MP2MP, [G.8011.1] and
   [G.8011.2] only require P2P.  There is a clear correspondence between
   E-Line/P2P service and GMPLS P2P TE LSPs, and support for such LSPs
   are included in the scope of this document.  There is no such clear
   correspondence between E-LAN/MP2MP service and GMPLS TE LSPs.
   Although it is possible to emulate the service using multiple P2P or
   P2MP TE LSPs.  The definition of support for MP2MP service is left
   for future study and is not addressed in this document.

   [MEF11] defines multiple types of control for UNI Ethernet services.
   In MEF UNI Type 1, services are configured manually.  In MEF UNI Type
   2, services may be configured manually or via a link management
   interface.  In MEF UNI Type 3, services may be established and
   managed via a signaling interface.  From the MEF perspective, this
   document along with [GMPLS-MEF-UNI] are aimed at the network control
   needed to support the MEF UNI Type 3 mode of operation.

   [G.8011.1], [G.8011.2] and [MEF11] together with [MEF10.1] define a
   set of service attributes that are associated with each Ethernet
   connection.  Some of these attributes are based on the provisioning
   of the local physical connection and are not modifiable or selectable
   per connection.  Other attributes are specific to a particular
   connection, or must be consistent across the connection.  The
   approach taken in this document to communicate these attributes is to
   exclude the static class of attributes from signaling.  This class of
   attributes will not be explicitly discussed in this document.  The
   other class of attributes are communicated via signaling and will be
   reviewed in the sections below.  The major attributes that will be
   supported in signaling include:
      - Endpoint identifiers
      - Connection identifiers
      - Traffic parameters (see [ETH-TRAFFIC])
      - Bundling / VLAN IDs map (EVPL only)
      - VLAN ID Preservation (EVPL only)

   Common procedures used to support Ethernet LSPs are described in
   Section 2 of this document.  Procedures related to signaling
   switching in support of EPL services are described in Section 3.
   Procedures related to signaling switching in support of EVPL services
   are described in Section 4.











Berger & Fedyk               Standards Track                    [Page 4]


Internet-Draft  draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-02.txt   August 8, 2008


1.2. 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. Common Signaling Support

   This section describes the common mechanisms for supporting GMPLS
   signaled control of LSPs that provide Ethernet connections as defined
   in [MEF11], [G.8011.1] and [G.8011.2].

   Except as specifically modified in this document, the procedures
   related to the processing of RSVP objects is not modified by this
   document.  The relevant procedures in existing documents, such as
   [RFC3473], MUST be followed in all cases not explicitly described in
   this document.


2.1. Ethernet Endpoint Identification

   Ethernet endpoint identifiers, as they are defined in [G.8011] and
   [MEF10.1], differ significantly from the identifiers used by GMPLS.
   Specifically, the Ethernet endpoint identifiers are character based
   as apposed to the GMPLS norm of being IP address based.

   The approach taken by this document to address this disparity
   leverages the solution used for connection identification, see
   Section 2.2 and [RFC4974], and a new CALL_ATTRIBUTES TLV defined in
   this document.  The solution makes use of the [RFC4974] short call
   ID, and supports the Ethernet endpoint identifier much like [RFC4974]
   supports the long call ID.  That is, the SENDER_TEMPLATE and SESSION
   objects carry IP addresses and a short call ID, and long identifiers
   are carried in the attributes object.  As with the long call ID, the
   Ethernet endpoint identifier is typically only relevant at the
   ingress and egress nodes.

   As defined below, the Ethernet endpoint identifier is carried in the
   CALL_ATTRIBUTES object in a new TLV.  The new TLV is referred to as
   the Endpoint ID TLV.  The processing of the Endpoint ID TLV parallels
   the processing of the long call ID in [RFC4974].  This processing
   requires the inclusion of the CALL_ATTRIBUTES object in a Notify
   message.







Berger & Fedyk               Standards Track                    [Page 5]


Internet-Draft  draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-02.txt   August 8, 2008


2.1.1. Endpoint ID TLV

   The Endpoint ID TLV follows the Attributes TLV format defined in
   [GMPLS-MRN]. The Endpoint ID TLV 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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |           Type (TBA)          |      Length (variable)        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                          Endpoint ID                          |
      |                              ...                              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Type and Length fields are defined in [GMPLS-MRN].  Note that as
      defined in [GMPLS-MRN], the Length field is set to length of the
      whole TLV including the Type, Length and Endpoint ID fields.

      Endpoint ID

         The Endpoint ID field is a variable size field that carries an
         endpoint identifier, see [MEF10.1] and [G.8011].  This field
         MUST be null padded as defined in [GMPLS-MRN].


2.1.1.1. Procedures

   The use of the Endpoint ID TLV is required during call management.
   When a call is established or torn down per [RFC4974], a
   CALL_ATTRIBUTES object containing an Endpoint ID TLV MUST be included
   in the Notify message along with the Long Call ID.

   Short Call ID processing, including those procedures related to call
   and connection processing, is not modified by this document and MUST
   proceed according to [RFC4974].

   A CALL_ATTRIBUTES object containing an Endpoint ID TLV MAY be
   included in the signaling messages of an LSP (connection) associated
   with an established call. Such objects are processed according to
   [4420BIS].

   Transit nodes supporting this document MUST propagate the Endpoint ID
   TLV without modification.








Berger & Fedyk               Standards Track                    [Page 6]


Internet-Draft  draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-02.txt   August 8, 2008


2.2. Connection Identification

   Signaling for Ethernet connections follows the procedures defined in
   [RFC4974].  In particular the Call related mechanisms are reused to
   support endpoint identification.  In the context of Ethernet
   connections, a call only exists when one or more LSPs (connections in
   [RFC4974] terms) are present.  An LSP will always be established
   within the context of a call and, typically, only one LSP will be
   used per call.  See Section 4.4 for the case where more than one LSP
   may exist within a call.


2.2.1. Procedures

   Any node that supports Ethernet connections MUST be able to accept
   and process call setups per [RFC4974].  Ethernet connections
   established according to this document MUST treat the Ethernet
   (virtual) connection identifier as the long "Call identifier (ID)",
   described in [RFC4974].  The short Call ID MUST be used as described
   in [RFC4974].  Use of the LINK_CAPABILITY object is OPTIONAL. Both
   network-initiated and user-initiated Calls MUST be supported.

   When establishing an Ethernet connection the initiator MUST first
   establish a Call per the procedures defined in [RFC4974]. LSP
   management, including removal and addition, then follows [RFC4974].
   As stated in [RFC4974], once a Call is established the initiator
   SHOULD establish at least one Ethernet LSP.  Also, when the last LSP
   associated with a Call is removed, the Call SHOULD be torn down per
   the procedures in [RFC4974].


2.3. Traffic Parameters

   Several types of service attributes are carried in the traffic
   parameters defined in [ETH-TRAFFIC].  These parameters are carried in
   the FLOWSPEC and TSPEC objects as discussed in [ETH-TRAFFIC].  The
   service attributes that are carried are:
      - Bandwidth Profile
      - VLAN CoS Preservation
      - Layer Two (L2) Control Protocol Processing (see Section 2.3.1)

   Ethernet connections established according to this document MUST use
   the traffic parameters defined in [ETH-TRAFFIC] in the FLOWSPEC and
   TSPEC objects.  Additionally, the Switching Granularity field of the
   Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object MUST be set to zero (0).






Berger & Fedyk               Standards Track                    [Page 7]


Internet-Draft  draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-02.txt   August 8, 2008


2.3.1. L2 Control Protocol TLV

   [MEF10.1], [8011.1] and [8011.2] define service attributes that
   impact the layer two (L2) control protocol processing at the ingress
   and egress.  [ETH-TRAFFIC] does not define support for these service
   attributes, but does allow the attributes to be carried in a TLV.
   This section defines the L2 Control Protocol (L2CP) TLV to carry the
   L2 control protocol processing related service attributes.

   The format of the L2 Control Protocol (L2CP) TLV is as follows:

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |             Type=3            |           Length=8            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | IL2CP | EL2CP |                  Reserved                     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      See [ETH-TRAFFIC] for a description of the Type and Length fields.
      Per [ETH-TRAFFIC], the Type field MUST be set to two (2), and the
      Length field MUST be set to eight (8) for the L2CP TLV.

      Ingress Layer 2 Control Processing (IL2CP): 4 bits

         This field controls processing of Layer 2 Control Protocols
         on a receiving interface. Valid usage is service specific,
         see [MEF10.1], [8011.1] and [8011.2].

         Permitted values are:

         Value  Description           Reference
         -----  -----------           ---------
           0    Reserved
           1    Discard/Block         [MEF10.1], [8011.1] and [8011.2]
           2    Peer/Process          [MEF10.1], [8011.1] and [8011.2]
           3    Pass to EVC/Pass      [MEF10.1], [8011.1] and [8011.2]
           4    Peer and Pass to EVC  [MEF10.1]

      Egress Layer 2 Control Processing (EL2CP): 4 bits

         This field controls processing of Layer 2 Control Protocols on
         a transmitting interface.  When MEF services are used a value
         of 1 MUST be used, other valid usage is service specific, see
         [8011.1] and [8011.2].






Berger & Fedyk               Standards Track                    [Page 8]


Internet-Draft  draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-02.txt   August 8, 2008


         Permitted values are:

         Value  Description             Reference
         -----  -----------             ---------
           0    Reserved
           1    Based on IL2CP Value    [MEF10.1]
           2    Generate                [8011.1] and [8011.2]
           3    None                    [8011.1] and [8011.2]
           4    Reserved

      Reserved: 24 bits

         This field is reserved. It MUST be set to zero on transmission
         and MUST be ignored on receipt. This field SHOULD be passed
         unmodified by transit nodes.

   Ethernet connections established according to this document MUST
   include the L2CP TLV in the [ETH-TRAFFIC] traffic parameters carried
   in the FLOWSPEC and TSPEC objects.


2.4. Bundling and VLAN Identification

   The control of bundling and listing of VLAN identifiers is only
   supported for EVPL services.  EVPL service specific details are
   provided in Section 4.


3. EPL Service

   Both [MEF6] and [G.8011.1] define an Ethernet Private Line (EPL)
   services. In the words of [G.8011.1], EPL services carry "Ethernet
   characteristic information over dedicated bandwidth, point-to-point
   connections, provided by SDH, ATM, MPLS, PDH, ETY or OTH server layer
   networks."  [G.8011.1] defines two types of Ethernet Private Line
   (EPL) services.  Both types present a service where all data
   presented on a port is transported to the corresponding connect port.
   The types differ in that EPL type 1 service operates at the MAC frame
   layer, while EPL type 2 service operates at the line (e.g., 8B/10B)
   encoding layer. [MEF6] only defines one type of EPL service, and it
   matches [G.8011.1] EPL type 1 service.  Signaling for LSPs that
   support both types of EPL services are detailed below.









Berger & Fedyk               Standards Track                    [Page 9]


Internet-Draft  draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-02.txt   August 8, 2008


3.1. EPL Service Parameters

   Signaling for the EPL service types only differ in the LSP Encoding
   Type used. The LSP Encoding Type used for each are:

      EPL Service     LSP Encoding Type
      -----------     -----------------
      Type 1/MEF      Ethernet (2) [RFC3471]
      Type 2          Line (e.g., 8B/10B)   (TBA by IANA)


   The other LSP parameters specific to EPL Service are:

      Parameter       Value
      --------------  -----
      Switching Type  DCSC          [GMPLS-EXT]
      G-PID           Ethernet (33) [RFC3471]

   The parameters defined in this section MUST be used when establishing
   and controlling LSPs that provide EPL service type Ethernet
   switching.  The procedures defined in Section 2 and the other
   procedures defined in [RFC3473] for the establishment and management
   of bidirectional LSPs MUST be followed when establishing and
   controlling LSPs that provide EPL service type Ethernet switching.


4. EVPL Service

   EVPL service is defined within the context of both [G.8011.2] and
   [MEF6]. EVPL service allows for multiple Ethernet connections per
   port, each of which supports a specific set of VLAN IDs. The service
   attributes identify different forms of EVPL services, e.g., bundled
   or unbundled.  Independent of the different forms, LSPs supporting
   EVPL Ethernet type switching are signaled using the same mechanisms
   to communicate the one or more VLAN IDs associated with a particular
   LSP (Ethernet connection).

   The relevant [RFC3471] parameter values that MUST be used for EVPL
   connections are:

      Parameter         Value
      --------------    -----
      Switching Type    TBD      [NOTE: under discussion]
      LSP Encoding Type Ethernet (2)
      G-PID             Ethernet (33)

   As with EPL, the procedures defined in Section 2 and the other
   procedures defined in [RFC3473] for the establishment and management



Berger & Fedyk               Standards Track                   [Page 10]


Internet-Draft  draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-02.txt   August 8, 2008


   of bidirectional LSPs MUST be followed when establishing and
   controlling LSPs that provide EVPL service type Ethernet switching.

   LSPs that provide EVPL service type Ethernet switching MUST use the
   EVPL Generalized Label Format per Section 4.1, and the Generalized
   Channel_Set Label Objects per [GMPLS-EXT].  A notable implication of
   bundled EVPL services and carrying multiple VLAN IDs is that a Path
   message may grow to be larger than a single (fragmented or non-
   fragmented) IP packet.  The basic approach to solving this is to
   allow for multiple LSPs which are associated with a single call, see
   Section 2.2.  The specifics of this approach are describe below in
   Section 4.4.


4.1. EVPL Generalized Label Format

   Bundled EVPL services requires the use of a service specific label,
   called the EVPL Generalized Label. For consistency, Non-bundled EVPL
   services also use the same label.

   The format for the Generalized Label (Label Type value 2) used with
   EVPL services is:

      0                   1
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | Rsvd  |        VLAN ID        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Reserved: 4 bits

         This field is reserved. It MUST be set to zero on transmission
         and MUST be ignored on receipt. This field SHOULD be passed
         unmodified by transit nodes.

      VLAN ID: 12 bits

         A VLAN identifier.


4.2. Egress VLAN ID Control and VLAN ID preservation

   Per [MEF6], the mapping of the single VLAN ID used at the incoming
   interface of the ingress to a different VLAN ID at the outgoing
   interface at the egress UNI is allowed for EVPL services that do not
   support either bundling and VLAN ID preservation.  Such a mapping
   MUST be requested and signaled based on the explicit label control
   mechanism defined in [RFC3473] and clarified in [RFC4003].



Berger & Fedyk               Standards Track                   [Page 11]


Internet-Draft  draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-02.txt   August 8, 2008


   When the explicit label control mechanism is not used, VLAN IDs MUST
   be preserved, i.e., not modified, across an LSP.


4.3. Single Call - Single LSP

   For simplicity in management, a single LSP SHOULD be used for each
   EVPL type LSP whose Path and Resv messages fit within a single
   unfragmented IP packet.  This allows the reuse of all standard LSP
   modification procedures.  Of particular note is the modification of
   the VLAN IDs associated with the Ethernet connection.  Specifically,
   [GMPLS-EXT], make-before-break procedures SHOULD be used to modify
   the Channel_Set LABEL object.


4.4. Single Call - Multiple LSPs

   Multiple LSPs MAY be used to support an EVPL service connection.  All
   such LSPs MUST be established within the same call and follow call
   related procedures, see Section 2.2.  The primary purpose of multiple
   LSPs is to support the case where the related objects result in a
   Path message being larger than a single unfragmented IP packet.

   When using multiple LSPs, all LSPs associated with the same call /
   EVPL connection MUST be signaled with the same LSP objects with the
   exception of the SENDER_TEMPLATE, SESSION and label related objects.
   All such LSPs SHOULD share resources.  When using multiple LSPs, VLAN
   IDs MAY be added to the EVPL connection using either a new LSP or
   make-before-break procedures, see [RFC3209].  Make-before-break
   procedures on individual LSPs SHOULD be used to remove VLAN IDs.

   To change other service parameters it is necessary to resignal all
   LSPs associated with the call via make-before-break procedures.


5. IANA Considerations

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












Berger & Fedyk               Standards Track                   [Page 12]


Internet-Draft  draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-02.txt   August 8, 2008


5.1. Endpoint ID Attributes TLV

   Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the assignment in
   the "CALL_ATTRIBUTES TLV Space" section of the "RSVP TE Parameters"
   registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-
   parameters:


   Type  Name         Reference
   ----  -----------  ---------
   2*    Endpoint ID  [This document]

   (*) Suggested value.


5.2. Line LSP Encoding

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

   Value   Type                                 Reference
   -----   ---------------------------          ---------
      14*  Line (e.g., 8B/10B)                 [This document]

   (*) Suggested value.


6. 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.


7. References

7.1. Normative References

   [ETH-TRAFFIC] Papadimitriou, D., "Ethernet Traffic Parameters,"
                 draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-traffic-parameters-05.txt,
                 Work in progress, July 12, 2008.





Berger & Fedyk               Standards Track                   [Page 13]


Internet-Draft  draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-02.txt   August 8, 2008


   [GMPLS-EXT]  Berger, L., Papadimitriou, P., Fedyk, D.,
                "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Data Channel Switching
                Capable (DCSC) and Channel Set Label Extensions",
                draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-00.txt,
                Work in Progress, August 2008.

   [GMPLS-MRN] Papadimitriou, D. et al, "Generalized Multi-Protocol
               Label Switching (GMPLS) Protocol Extensions for
               Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks (MLN/MRN)",
               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-extensions-02.txt,
               Work in progress, July 2008.

   [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.

   [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.

   [RFC4003] Berger, L., "GMPLS Signaling Procedure for Egress
             Control", RFC 4003, February 2005.

   [4420BIS] Farrel, A., et al. "Encoding of Attributes for
             Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched
             Path (LSP) Establishment Using Resource ReserVation
             Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)",
             draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc4420bis-03.txt,
             Work in progress, May 27, 2008,

   [RFC4974] Papadimitriou, D., Farrel, A. "Generalized MPLS
             (GMPLS) RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in support of Calls",
             RFC 4974, August 2007.


7.2. Informative References

   [G.8011]         ITU-T G.8011/Y.1307, "Ethernet over Transport
                    Ethernet services framework", August 2004.




Berger & Fedyk               Standards Track                   [Page 14]


Internet-Draft  draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-02.txt   August 8, 2008


   [G.8011.1]       ITU-T G.G.8011.1/Y.1307.1, "Ethernet private
                    line service", August 2004.

   [G.8011.2]       ITU-T G.8011.2/Y.1307.2, "Ethernet virtual
                    private line service", September 2005.

   [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.

   [MEF6]           The Metro Ethernet Forum, "Ethernet Services
                    Definitions - Phase I", MEF 6, June 2004

   [MEF10.1]        The Metro Ethernet Forum, "Ethernet Services
                    Attributes Phase 2", MEF 10.1, November 2006.

   [MEF11]          The Metro Ethernet Forum , "User Network
                    Interface (UNI) Requirements and Framework",
                    MEF 11, November 2004.

   [RFC4875]        Aggarwal, R., Papadimitriou, P., Yasukawa, S.,
                    Eds,  "Extensions to Resource Reservation
                    Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for
                    Point-to-Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths
                    (LSPs)", RFC 4875, May 2007.


8. 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 Yoav
   Cohen for their valuable comments.


9. Author's Addresses

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






Berger & Fedyk               Standards Track                   [Page 15]


Internet-Draft  draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-02.txt   August 8, 2008


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

10. 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.


11. 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.

   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.




Berger & Fedyk               Standards Track                   [Page 16]


Internet-Draft  draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-02.txt   August 8, 2008


Acknowledgement

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















































Berger & Fedyk               Standards Track                   [Page 17]

Generated on: Fri Aug 8 09:53:58 EDT 2008


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