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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 RFC 6060

Network Working Group                     Don Fedyk, David Allan, Nortel
Internet Draft                                      Himanshu Shah, Ciena
Category: Standards Track                           Nabil Bitar, Verizon
                                 Attila Takacs, Diego Caviglia, Ericsson
                                                        Alan McGuire, BT
                                  Nurit Sprecher, Nokia Siemens Networks
                                                        Lou Berger, LabN
                                                          April 14, 2008

                         GMPLS control of Ethernet
               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-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/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire in October 2008.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

Abstract

   This memo is complementary to [ARCH] and describes how a GMPLS
   control plane may be applied to the Provider Backbone Bridges Traffic
   Engineering (PBB-TE) [IEEE 802.1Qay] amendment to 802.1Q and how
   GMPLS can be used to configure VLAN-aware Ethernet switches in order
   to establish Ethernet point to point (P2P) and P2MP MAC switched




   Fedyk et.al           Expires October 2008                 [Page 1]


Internet Draft     draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-00.txt

   paths and P2P/P2MP VID based trees.  This document supports, but does
   not modify, the standard IEEE data.

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].

Document History

   This document has under gone name changes to follow the
   standardization of Provider Backbone Bridges and the Traffic
   engineering capability.

   draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-ivl-00.txt.

   This was the original draft.

   draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbt-00.txt
   draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbt-01.txt

   This draft was renamed to reflect the Provider Backbone Transport
   (PBT) nomenclature. Several co-authors joined the draft.

   draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-00.txt

   The standardization of PBT is called Provider Backbone Bridges
   Traffic Engineering (PBB-TE). The draft was aligned the PBB-TE
   Technology.

   draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-01.txt

   This is the second revision of the PBB-TE draft with editing to
   clarify the document and the addition of co-authors.

   draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-02.txt

   This is a third revision with the general aspects of Ethernet being
   move to the architecture and framework [ARCH] and the specifics for
   PBB-TE becoming more clear.













Fedyk et al.              Expires October 2008                [Page 2]


Internet Draft     draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-00.txt

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction...................................................4
   2. Terminology....................................................4
   2.1  PBB-TE Terminology...........................................5
   3. GMPLS creation and maintenance of PBB-TE Service Instances.....5
   3.1  Ethernet Service.............................................6
   3.2  Addresses, Interfaces, and Labels............................7
   4. Specific Procedures............................................9
   4.1  P2P connections..............................................9
   4.1.1 Shared Forwarding..........................................10
   4.1.2 P2P connections with shared forwarding.....................11
   4.1.3 Dynamic P2P symmetry with shared forwarding................12
   4.1.4 Planned P2P symmetry.......................................12
   4.1.5 P2P Path Maintenance.......................................12
   4.2  P2MP Signaling..............................................13
   4.3  P2MP VID/ESP-MAC DA Connections.............................13
   4.3.1 Setup procedures...........................................13
   4.3.2 Maintenance Procedures.....................................13
   4.4  Ethernet Label..............................................14
   4.5  OAM MEP ID and MA ID synchronization........................15
   4.6  Protection Paths............................................15
   5. Error conditions..............................................16
   5.1  Invalid ESP-VID value for PBB-TE MSTI range.................16
   5.2  Invalid MAC Address.........................................16
   5.3  Invalid ERO for UPSTREAM_LABEL Object.......................16
   5.4  Invalid ERO for LABEL_SET Object............................16
   5.5  Switch is not ESP P2MP capable..............................16
   5.6  Invalid ESP-VID in UPSTREAM_LABEL object....................16
   6. Deployment Scenarios..........................................16
   7. Security Considerations.......................................16
   8. IANA Considerations...........................................17
   9. References....................................................17
   9.1  Normative References........................................17
   9.2  Informative References......................................17
   10.  Author's Address............................................18
   11.  Intellectual Property Statement.............................19
   12.  Disclaimer of Validity......................................20
   13.  Copyright Statement.........................................20
   14.  Acknowledgments.............................................20
   Appendix A.......................................................21
   Rational and mechanism for PBB_TE Ethernet Forwarding............21
   A 1.  Overview of configuration of VID/DMAC tuples...............23
   A 2.  Overview of configuration of VID port membership...........26
   A 3.  OAM Aspects................................................26
   A 4.  QOS Aspects................................................27
   A 5.  Resiliency Aspects.........................................27
   A 5.1.  E2E Path protection......................................27






Fedyk et al.              Expires October 2008                [Page 3]


Internet Draft     draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-00.txt

1. Introduction

   IEEE 802.1 is specifying Traffic Engineered Ethernet paths in the
   Provider Backbone Bridged network (PBB-TE) [IEEE 802.1Qay] based on
   managed objects that can be separated from the Spanning Tree Control
   Plane and statically configured or managed by a another control
   plane. These paths have minor changes to Ethernet data plane
   specified in the IEEE. IEEE 802 termed these paths "PBB-TE service
   instances".

   The purpose of this document is to specify extensions for a GMPLS
   based control plane to manage PBB-TE service instances. This draft
   is aligned with GMPLS Ethernet Label Switching Architecture and
   Framework [ARCH].

   It should be noted that due to the changes in the separation of the
   Spanning Tree Control plane and the PBB-TE forwarding, the behavior
   of PBB-TE for the specified VLAN range is a new behavior. (It does
   not default to conventional Ethernet forwarding with learning at any
   time). Appendix A summarized the rational for this data plane
   technology until the IEEE specification is more mature.

2. Terminology

   In addition to well understood GMPLS terms, this memo uses
   terminology from IEEE 802.1 and introduces a few new terms:

   B-MAC        Backbone MAC
   B-VID        Backbone VLAN ID
   B-VLAN       Backbone VLAN
   CBP          Customer Backbone Port
   CCM          Continuity Check Message
   COS          Class of Service
   CLI          Command Line Interface
   CIP          Customer Instance Port
   C-MAC        Customer MAC
   C-VID        Customer VLAN ID
   C-VLAN       Customer VLAN
   DMAC         Destination MAC Address
   ESP          Ethernet Switched Path
   Eth-LSP      Ethernet Label switched Path
   I-SID        Ethernet Service Instance Identifier
   LBM          Loopback Message
   LBR          Loopback Reply
   LLDP         Link Layer Discovery Protocol
   LMM          Loss Measurement Message
   LMR          Loss Measurement Reply
   MAC          Media Access Control
   MMAC         Multicast MAC
   MSTI         Multiple Spanning Tree Instance
   MP2MP        Multipoint to multipoint
   PBB          Provider Backbone Bridges
   PBB-TE       Provider Backbone Bridges Traffic Engineering

Fedyk et al.              Expires October 2008                [Page 4]


Internet Draft     draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-00.txt

   PIP          Provider Instance Port
   PNP          Provider Network Port
   P2P          Point to Point
   P2MP         Point to Multipoint
   QOS          Quality of Service
   ESP-MAC SA   Source MAC Address
   S-VID        Service VLAN ID
   SVL          Shared VLAN Learning
   VID          VLAN ID
   VLAN         Virtual LAN



2.1 PBB-TE Terminology

   The PBB-TE specification has defiend some additional termminology to
   clarify the PBB-TE functions. We repeat these here in expanded
   context to translate from IEEE to GMPLS terminology.

   - Ethernet Switched Path (ESP): A provisioned traffic engineered
     unidirectional connectivity path between two or more Customer
     Backbone Ports(CBPs) which extends over a Provider Backbone Bridge
     Network (PBBN). The path is identified by the 3-tuple <ESP-MAC DA,
     ESP-MAC SA, ESP-VID> where the ESP-VID value is allocated to the
     PBB-TE Multiple Spanning Tree Instance (MSTI)(A set of VIDs for
     PBB-TE is allocated as a set of MSTIs). An ESP is analogous to an
     GMPLS LSP.

   - PBB-TE Region: A set of PBB switches and PB switches by a set of
     Service-VLANs allocated to provisioned Ethernet Switched Paths
     (ESPs).

   - PBB-TE service instance: A Point-to-Point or a Point-to-Multipoint
     PBB-TE service instance.

   - PBB-TE Trunk: A Point-to-Point PBB-TE service instance.

   - Point-to-Point PBB-TE service instance: An instance of the MAC
     service provided by two unidirectional co-routed ESPs forming a
     bidirectional service. A GMPLS bidirectional path is analogous to
     a P2P PBB-TE Service instance.

   - Point-to-Multipoint PBB-TE service instance: An instance of the
     MAC service provided by a set of ESPs which comprises one
     multipoint ESP plus n unidirectional point-to-point ESPs, routed
     along the leaves of the multicast ESP. A P2MP GMPLS bidirectional
     tree is analogous to a P2MP PBB-TE service instance.

3. GMPLS creation and maintenance of PBB-TE Service Instances

   PBB-TE is an Ethernet connection oriented technology, being
   specified in the IEEE, which can be controlled by configuration of
   static filtering entries [see Appendix A] for some details on the

Fedyk et al.              Expires October 2008                [Page 5]


Internet Draft     draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-00.txt

   rational for the data plane. PBB-TE ESPs are created switch by
   switch by simple configuration of Ethernet logical ports and
   assignment of PBB-TE labels or by a control plane. This document
   describes GMPLS as a valid control plane for Eth-LSPs that are based
   on PBB-TE ESPs. A Point-to-Point PBB-TE service instance is a form
   of Ethernet LSP (Eth-LSP) which is more broadly defined in [ARCH].
   This memo describes GMPLS as a mechanism to automate set-up
   teardown, protection and recovery of PBB-TE ESPs and specifies the
   specific TLVs for control of PBB-TE service instances.

   When configuring a PBB-TE ESP with GMPLS, the ESP-MAC DA and ESP-VID
   are carried in a generalized label object and are assigned hop by
   hop but are invariant within a domain. This invariance is similar to
   GMPLS operation in transparent optical networks. As is typical with
   other technologies controlled by GMPLS, the data plane receiver must
   accept, and usually assigns, labels from its available label pool.
   This, together with the label invariance requirement mentioned
   above, result in each PBB-TE label being a domain wide unique label,
   with a unique ESP-VID + ESP-MAC DA, for each direction.

   The following illustrates the identifiers for Labels and ESPs.

   GMPLS Upstream Label          <ESP:MAC1(DA), VID1> (60 bits)
   GMPLS Downstream Label        <ESP:MAC2(DA), VID2> (60 bits)
   Upstream PBB-TE ESP 3-tuple   <ESP:MAC1, MAC2, VID1> (108 bits)
   Downstream PBB-TE ESP 3-tuple <ESP:MAC2, MAC1, VID2> (108 bits)

                          Table 1 Labels and ESPs

   The MAC is domain wide unique in the network. PBB-TE defines the
   tuple of <ESP-MAC DA, ESP-MAC SA, ESP-VID> as a unique connection
   identifier in the data plane but the forwarding operation only uses
   the ESP-MAC DA (DMAC) and the ESP-VID in each direction. Note that
   the MAC addresses for PBB-TE are part of the Backbone Component
   Relay (B-Component) and are associated with Provider addresses
   corresponding to the Backbone Customer ports as described in section
   3.2. The ESP-VID (VID) typically comes from a small number of VIDs
   dedicated to PBB-TE MSTI. The ESP-VID (VID) can be reused across
   ESPs. There is no requirement the ESP-VID for two ESPs that for a
   PBB-TE Service instance be the same.

   Several attributes may be associated with an Eth-LSP.  These are
   reviewed in Section 3 of [ARCH]. Several other aspects of GMPLS
   covered by [ARCH] also apply equally to PBB-TE.  This includes the
   GMPLS routing and addressing model, link management, path
   computation and selection, and multiple domains.


3.1 Ethernet Service

   Ethernet Switched Paths that are setup either by configuration or
   signaling can be used to provide an Ethernet service to customers of
   the Ethernet network.  The Metro Ethernet Forum has defined some

Fedyk et al.              Expires October 2008                [Page 6]


Internet Draft     draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-00.txt

   services in [MEF.6] (e.g., Ethernet Private Line), and these are also
   aligned with ITU-T G.8011-x Recommendations.  Of particular interest
   are the bandwidth profile parameters in [MEF.10] and whose associated
   bandwidth profile algorithm are based on [RFC4115] [RFC3270].
   Consideration should be given to supporting these in any signaling
   extensions for Ethernet LSPs. This will be addressed in a future
   version of this specification.


3.2 Addresses, Interfaces, and Labels

   This specification uses an addressing scheme and a label space for
   the ingress/egress connection; the hierarchical TE Router
   ID/Interface ID and the Ethernet ESP-VID/ESP-MAC DA tuple or ESP-
   VID/Multicast MAC as a label space. This draft is intended to be
   consistent with GMPLS addressing and Routing [ARCH].


   PBB-TE is defined for a PBB IB-Bridge. This is illustrated in Figure
   1.  The Ethernet service is attached to a Customer Instance Port
   (CIP) of the Backbone Service Instance (I-component) Relay. The CIP
   is interfaced to a Virtual instance port (VIP) which is identified
   with a configured service instance (I-SID) and attached to a Provider
   Instance Port (PIP). The PIP is configured to be attached to a
   customer Backbone port (CBP). (A point to point service instance is
   illustrated. A point to multipoint service could allow more than one
   CBP to be attached to a single PIP.) The CBP has a BMAC that defines
   the MAC for the PBB-TE Service Instance. The B-Component relay adds
   the ESP Header the ESP-MAC DA, ESP-MAC SA and the ESP-VID.  GMPLS is
   being defined here to connect CPB MACs to signal the PBB-TE service
   Instance before the association of ESP-MAC DA and ESP-MAC SA is
   defined.

   The diagram also shows the addition of a TE Router ID to the PBB
   switch and the TE Link identifier to enable GMPLS. TE Links are not
   associated with CPBs. TE Links are associated with PNPs. TE links are
   associated with node identifiers of backbone edge bridges (BEB) and
   backbone core bridges (BCB). CBPs are also associated with these node
   ids.  For GMPLS the node IDs are expressed as IP addresses as TE-
   Router IDs. [ADDRESS]














Fedyk et al.              Expires October 2008                [Page 7]


Internet Draft     draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-00.txt

                      Backbone Edge Bridge (BEB)
     +------------------------------------------------------+
     |                    <TE - Router ID >                 |
     |                                                      |
     |  I-Component Relay             B-Component Relay     |
     | +-----------------------+    +---------------------+ |
     | |          +---+        |    |         B-VID       | |
     | |          |VIP|        |    | +---+         +---+ | | <TE Link>
     | |          +---+        |  +---|CBP|         |PNP|------
     | |                       |  | | +---+         +---+ | |
     | |  +---+          +---+ |  | |                     | |
    ------|CIP|          |PIP|----+ |                     | |
     | |  +---+          +---+ |    |                     | |
     | +-----------------------+    +---------------------+ |
     |                                                      |
     |                   PBB Edge Bridge                    |
     +------------------------------------------------------+

     ^--------Configured--------------^
                                      ^-GMPLS or Configured-.

             Figure 2 Ethernet/GMPLS Addressing & Label Space






       TE Router ID                     TE Router ID
          |  (TE Link)                       |
          V     |                            V          N=named port
        +----+  |                         +-----+         <port index>
        |    |  |    label=ESP:VID/MAC DA |     |         <MAC>
        | PB |  V    label=ESP:VID/MMAC   |     |         <string>
   -----N    N----------------------------N PBB N----------
        |    |                            |(MAC)|   \
        |    |                            /     |     Customer
        +----+                           /+-----+     Facing
         BCB                       ESP:MAC  BEB       Ports

             Figure 3 Ethernet/GMPLS Addressing & Label Space




   For a GMPLS based system, the TE Router ID/logical port is the
   logical signaling identifier for the control plane via which Ethernet
   layer label bindings are solicited. In order to create a P2P path an
   association must be made between the ingress and egress node.  The
   actual label distributed via signaling and instantiated in the switch
   forwarding tables identifies the upstream and downstream egress ESP-
   VID/ESP-MAC DA of the PBB-TE ESP (see Figure 4).


Fedyk et al.              Expires October 2008                [Page 8]


Internet Draft     draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-00.txt

   GMPLS uses identifiers in the form of 32 bit numbers which are in the
   IP address notation which may or may not be IP addresses.  The
   provider MAC port addresses are exchanged by the LLDP [IEEE 802.1AB]
   and by LMP [RFC4204] if supported. However these identifiers are
   merely for link control and legacy Ethernet support and have local
   link scope. Actual label assignment is performed by the ingress and
   egress nodes using CPB MAC addresses.

   A particular PNP would have:
   - A VID/MAC
   - An IP address, which is typically the TE router ID, plus a 32 bit
   interface Identifier also call an unnumbered link.
   - One (or more) Mnemonic String Identifiers

   This multiple naming convention leaves the issue of resolving the set
   given one of the port identifiers. On a particular node, mapping is
   relatively straightforward.  Per [ARCH], standard GMPLS mechanisms
   are used for signaling resolution. In so doing, the problem of
   setting up a path is reduced to figuring out what switch supports an
   egress CBP MAC address and then finding the corresponding egress IP
   address and performing all signaling and routing with respect to the
   egress.

   There are several options to achieve this:
   - Provisioning
   - Auto discovery protocols that carry MAC address
   - Augmenting Routing TE with MAC Addresses
   - Name Servers with identifier/address registration
   The specific procedures will be clarified in a subsequent version of
   this document.


4.  Specific Procedures

4.1 P2P connections

   The PBB-TE Service Instance is defined by the ESP 3-tuples for each
   of the unidirectional ESPs. From a GMPLS control plane point of view
   an Ethernet LSP MAY also be identified as any other LSP using the 5-
   tuple [Ip_Source_Sddr, Ip_Dest_Addr, LSP_Id, Tunnel_ID,
   Extended_Tunnel_ID]. The ESP-VID and ESP-MAC DA tuple identifies the
   forwarding multiplex at transit switches and a simple degenerate form
   of the multiplex is a single P2P connection.

   This results in unique labels end to end. The data streams MAY merge,
   the forwarding entries MAY be shared but the headers are still unique
   allowing the connection to be de-multiplexed downstream.

   On the initiating and terminating nodes, a function administers the
   ESP-VIDs associated with the ESP-MAC SA and ESP-MAC DA respectively.
   PBB-TE is designed to be bidirectional and symmetrically routed just
   like Ethernet. Therefore in PBB-TE, the packet ESP-MAC SA and ESP-


Fedyk et al.              Expires October 2008                [Page 9]


Internet Draft     draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-00.txt

   MAC DA pair is same in the forwarding path and the associated
   reverse path except they are flipped in the reverse direction.

   To initiate a bidirectional ESP-VID/ESP-MAC DA P2P or P2MP path, the
   initiator of the PATH message uses procedures outlined in [RFC3473]
   possibly augmented with [RFC4875], it:

   1) Sets the LSP encoding type to Ethernet.

   2) Sets the LSP switching type to 802_1 PBB-TE [IANA to define].

   3) Sets the GPID to service type [IANA to define].

   4) Sets the UPSTREAM_LABEL to the ESP-VID/ESP-MAC SA tuple where the
   ESP-VID is administered from the configured ESP-VID/ESP-MAC DA
   range.

   5) Optionally sets the LABEL_SET or SUGGESTED_LABEL if it chooses to
   influence the choice of ESP-VID/ESP-MAC DA.

   6) Optionally look at Call / Connection ID for Carrying I-SID.


   Intermediate and egress node processing is not modified by this
   document, i.e., is per [RFC3473] and, in the case of P2MP, as
   extended in [RFC4875]. Note, as previously stated intermediate nodes
   supporting the 802_1 switching type may not modify LABEL values.

   The ESP-VID/ESP-MAC SA tuple contained in the UPSTREAM_LABEL is used
   to create a static forwarding entry in the Filtering Database of
   bridges at each hop for the upstream direction. This behavior is
   inferred from the switching type which is 802_1 [IANA to define].
   The port derived from the RSVP_HOP object and the ESP-VID and ESP-
   MAC DA included in the label constitute the static entry.

   At the destination, a ESP-VID is allocated in the local MAC range
   for the ESP-MAC DA and the ESP-VID/ESP-MAC DA tuple is passed in a
   LABEL object in the RESV message.  As with the Path message,
   intermediate node processing is per [RFC3473] and [RFC4875], and the
   LABEL object is passed on unchanged, upstream.  The ESP-VID/ESP-MAC
   DA tuple contained in the LABEL Object is installed in the
   forwarding table as a static forwarding entry at each hop. This
   creates a bidirectional path as the PATH and RESV messages follow
   the same path.

4.1.1   Shared Forwarding

   One capability of a connectionless Ethernet data plane is to reuse
   destination forwarding entries for packets from any source within a
   VLAN to a destination. When setting up P2P PBB-TE connections for
   multiple sources sharing a common destination this capability MAY be
   preserved provided certain requirements are met. We refer to this
   capability as Shared Forwarding.  Shared forwarding is invoked based

Fedyk et al.              Expires October 2008                [Page 10]


Internet Draft     draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-00.txt

   on policy when conditions are met.  It is a local decision by label
   allocation at each end. Shared forwarding has no impact on the
   actual paths setup, but it allows the reduction of forwarding
   entries. Shared forwarding paths are identical to independently
   routed paths with the exception that they share the same labels and
   same path from the merge point.

   To achieve shared forwarding, a Path computation engine [PATHCOMP]
   should ensure the ERO is consistent with an existing path for the
   shared segments. If a path satisfies the consistency check, the
   upstream end of the signaling may chose to share an existing ESP-
   VID/ESP-MAC DA for the upstream traffic with an existing Eth-LSP.
   The criteria for shared forwarding is the Eth-LSPs must share the
   same destination port and the paths of the Eth-LSP share one or more
   hops consecutively. Once the paths converge they must remain
   converged. If no existing path has this behavior when a new path is
   being created, the new path will be created without sharing either
   by using another ESP-VID or another ESP-MAC DA or both.

   In other words, shared forwarding is possible when paths share
   segments either from the source or the destination. There is no
   requirement that the paths share reservations or other attributes.
   For the source, the UPSTREAM_LABEL is chosen to be the same as an
   existing path that shares the ERO for some number of hops.
   Similarly for the destination, shared forwarding is possible when an
   existing path that shares segments with the new paths ERO, viewed
   from the destination switch.  The downstream label in this case is
   chosen to be the same as the existing path. In this manner shared
   forwarding is a function that is controlled primarily by policy and
   in combination with the local label allocation at the end points of
   the path.

4.1.2   P2P connections with shared forwarding

   The ESP-VID/ESP-MAC DA MAY be considered to be a shared forwarding
   identifier or label for a multiplex consisting of some number of P2P
   connections distinctly identified by the MAC ESP-VID/ESP-MAC DA/ESP-
   MAC SA tuple. In some ways this is analogous to an LDP label merge
   but in the shared forwarding case only the forwarding entry is
   reused. Resources can continue to be allocated per LSP.

   VLAN tagged Ethernet packets include priority marking. Priority bits
   MAY be used to indicate class of Service (COS) and drop priority.
   Thus, traffic from multiple COSs could be multiplexed on the same
   Eth-LSP (i.e., similar to E-LSPs) and queuing and drop decisions are
   made based on the p-bits. This means that the queue selection can be
   done based on a per flow (i.e., Eth-LSP + priority) basis and is
   decoupled from the actual steering of the packet at any given node.

   A switch terminating an Eth-LSP will frequently have more than one
   suitable candidate path and it may choose to share a forwarding entry
   (common ESP-VID/ESP-MAC DA, unique ESP-MAC SA). It is a local


Fedyk et al.              Expires October 2008                [Page 11]


Internet Draft     draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-00.txt

   decision of how this is performed but the best choice is a path that
   maximizes the shared forwarding.

   The concept of bandwidth management still applies equally well with
   shared forwarding. As an example consider a PBB-TE edge switch that
   terminates an Ethernet LSP with the following attributes: bandwidth
   B1, ESP-MAC DA D, ESP-MAC SA S1, ESP-VID V. A request to establish an
   additional Ethernet LSP with attributes (bandwidth B2, ESP-MAC DA D,
   ESP-MAC SA S2, ESP-VID V) can be accepted provided there is
   sufficient link capacity remaining.


4.1.3  Dynamic P2P symmetry with shared forwarding

   Similar to how a destination switch MAY select a ESP-VID/ESP-MAC DA
   from the set of existing shared forwarding multiplexes rooted at the
   destination node, the originating switch MAY also do so for the
   reverse path. Once the initial ERO has been computed and the set of
   existing Ethernet LSPs that include the target ESP-MAC DA have been
   pruned, the originating switch may select the optimal (by whatever
   criteria) existing shared forwarding multiplex for the new
   destination to merge with and offer its own ESP-VID/ESP-MAC DA tuple
   for itself as a destination.

4.1.4   Planned P2P symmetry

   Normally the originating switch will not have knowledge of the set of
   shared forwarding paths rooted on the destination node.

   Use of a Path Computation Server [PATHCOMP] or other planning style
   of tool with more complete knowledge of the network configuration may
   wish to impose pre-selection of shared forwarding multiplexes to use
   for both directions. In this scenario the originating switch uses the
   LABEL_SET and UPSTREAM_LABEL objects to indicate complete selection
   of the shared forwarding multiplexes at both ends. This may also
   result in the establishment of a new ESP-VID/ESP-MAC DA path as the
   LABEL_SET object may legitimately refer to a path that does not yet
   exist.

4.1.5   P2P Path Maintenance

   Make before break procedures can be employed to modify the
   characteristics of a P2P Ethernet LSP. As described in [RFC3209],
   the LSP ID in the sender template is updated as the new path is
   signaled. The procedures (including those for shared forwarding) are
   identical to those employed in establishing a new LSP, with the
   extended tunnel ID in the signaling exchange ensuring that double
   booking of the associated resources does not occur.

   Where individual paths in a protection group are modified, signaling
   procedures may be combined with Protection Switching (PS)
   coordination to administratively force PS switching operations such
   that modifications are only ever performed on the protection path.

Fedyk et al.              Expires October 2008                [Page 12]


Internet Draft     draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-00.txt


4.2 P2MP Signaling

   Note specifics for P2MP paths are being defined. This section will
   be updated to align with the PBB-TE specification [IEEE 802.1Qay].

   To initiate a P2MP VID/Multicast MAC (MMAC) path the initiator of
   the PATH message uses procedures outlined in [RFC3473] and
   [RFC4875]. A P2MP tree consists of a VID tree or MMAC tree in the
   forward direction (from root to leaves) and a set of P2P paths
   running on identical paths from Tree to root in the reverse
   direction. The result is a composite path with Multicast VID/ESP-
   MMAC DA labels with a single ESP-MMAC DA in the forward direction
   and a symmetric unidirectional ESP-VID/ESP-MAC DA label in the
   reverse direction:

   1-4) Same points as P2P paths previously specified.

   5) Sets the downstream label as the Multicast VID/ESP-MMAC DA.

   6) VID translation may optionally be permitted on a local basis
   between two switches by a downstream switch replying with a
   Multicast VID/ESP-MMAC DA other than the LABEL_SET. The upstream
   switch then sets a VID translation on the port associated with the
   label to allow VID translation. This flexibility allows the tree to
   be constructed with out having to worry about colliding with another
   tree using the same VID. (Inclusion of this point is TBD by [IEEE
   802.1Qay])

4.3 P2MP VID/ESP-MAC DA Connections

4.3.1 Setup procedures

   The group ESP-MMAC DA is administered from a central pool of
   multicast addresses and the VLAN selected from the PBB-TE MSTI range.
   The P2MP tree is constructed via incremental addition of leaves to
   the tree in signaling exchange where the root is the originating
   switch (as per (RFC4875). The multicast VID/ESP-MAC DA is encoded in
   the LABEL_SET (as a member of one) object using the Ethernet label
   encoding.

   Where a return path is required the unicast MAC corresponding to the
   originating interface and a VID selected from the configured VID/ESP-
   MAC DA range is encoded as an Ethernet label in the UPSTREAM_LABEL
   object.

4.3.2   Maintenance Procedures

   Maintenance and modification to a P2MP tree can be achieved by a
   number of means. The preferred technique is to modify existing VLAN
   configuration vs. assignment of a new label and completely
   constructing a new tree.


Fedyk et al.              Expires October 2008                [Page 13]


Internet Draft     draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-00.txt

   Make before break on a live tree reusing existing label assignments
   requires a 1:1 or 1+1 construct. The protection switch state of the
   traffic is forced on the working tree and locked (PS not allowed)
   while the backup tree is modified. Explicit path tear of leaves to
   be modified is required to ensure no loops are left behind as
   artifacts of tree modification. Once modifications are complete, a
   forced switch to the backup tree occurs and the original tree may be
   similarly modified. This also suggests that 1+1 or 1:1 resilience
   can be achieved for P2MP trees for any single failure (switch on any
   failure and use restoration techniques to repair the failed tree).


4.4 Ethernet Label

   The Ethernet label is a new generalized label with a suggested
   format of:


       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |0 0 0 0|      ESP VID          |    ESP MAC (highest 2 bytes)  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                            ESP MAC                            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   This format can be used to carry P2P and P2MP labels. For P2P labels
   the fields specify ESP <VID, MAC DA>. The semantics for P2MP label o
   using a MMAC DA is that that the label is passed unchanged. This
   label is also a domain wide label.  This has similarity to the way
   in which a wavelength label is handled at an intermediate switch
   that cannot perform wavelength conversion, and is described in
   [RFC3473]. The option to allow just a Multicast VID to be signaled
   without a MAC (A zero MAC) is for cases where a single VID is
   desired to be signaled for P2MP trees in cases where a multicast MAC
   is not desired.

   These domain wide labels are allocated to switches that control the
   assignment of labels. There are two options for Ethernet MAC based
   domain wide unique labels. One option is to allocate the ESP-MAC DAs
   from globally unique addresses assigned to the either the switch
   manufacturer or the owner. The other option is to use ESP-MAC DAs
   out of the local admin space and ensue these labels are unique
   within the domain. This local ESP-MAC DA space does not have to be
   globally unique because the labels are only valid within a single
   provider domain.

   In the case of local label allocation there is less administrative
   overhead to allocate labels. However when using configuration, a
   tool would have to perform a consistency check to make sure that
   labels were unique. When using GMPLS signaling it is assumed a
   unique pool of labels would be assigned to each switch. The ESP-MAC
   DA addresses are domain wide unique and so is the combination of ESP

Fedyk et al.              Expires October 2008                [Page 14]


Internet Draft     draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-00.txt

   <VID, MAC DA>. It is intended that the ESP <VID, MAC DA> be only
   used by one destination. However, should an error occur and a
   somehow a duplicate label be assigned to one or more destination
   switches GMPLS signaling procedures would allow the first assignment
   of the label and prevent any duplicate label from colliding. If a
   collision occurs an alarm would be generated. In fact some of these
   procedures have been defined in GMPLS control of photonic networks
   where a lambda may exist as a form of domain wide label.


4.5 OAM MEP ID and MA ID synchronization

   This section is aligned with [IEEE 802.1Qay]. At present it Ethernet
   OAM is signaled in Ethernet packet data units.

   The Maintenance end point IDs (MEP IDs) and maintenance association
   IDs for the switched path endpoints can be synchronized using the
   ETH-MCC (maintenance communication channel) transaction set once the
   switched path has been established.

   MEPs are located at the endpoints of the Ethernet LSP. Typical
   configuration associated with a MEP is Maintenance Domain Name,
   Short Maintenance Association Name, and MA Level, MEP ID, and CCM
   transmission rate (when ETH-CC functionality is desired). As part of
   the synchronization, it is verified that the Maintenance Domain
   Name, Short Maintenance Association Name, MA Level, and CCM
   transmission rate are the same. It is also determined that MEP IDs
   are unique for each MEP.

   Besides the unicast CCM functionality, the PBB-TE MEPs can also
   offer the LBM/LBR and LMM/LMR functionalities for on-demand
   connectivity verification and loss measurement purposes.

4.6 Protection Paths

   The IEEE is currently defining protection procedures for PBB-TE
   [IEEE 802.1Qay]. This section will be updated when these procedures
   are documented.

   When protection is used for path recovery it is required to
   associate the working and protection paths into a protection group.
   This is achieved as defined in [RFC4872] and [RFC4873] using the
   ASSOCIATION and PROTECTION objects. Protection may be used for P2P
   VID/ESP-MAC DA, P2MP VID/ESP-MAC DA and P2MP VID configured modes of
   operation. The 'P' bit in the protection object indicates the role
   (working or protection) of the LSP currently being signaled.

   If the initiating switch wishes to use G.8031 [G-8031] data plane
   protection switching coordination (vs. control plane notifications),
   it sets the N bit to 1 in the protection object. This must be
   consistently applied for all paths associated as a protection group.



Fedyk et al.              Expires October 2008                [Page 15]


Internet Draft     draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-00.txt

   If the terminating switch does not support G.8031, the error
   "Admission Control Failure/Unsupported Notification Type" is used.

5. Error conditions

   The following errors have been identified as being unique to these
   procedures and in addition to those already defined. This will be
   addressed in a proper IANA considerations section in a future
   version of the document:

5.1 Invalid ESP-VID value for PBB-TE MSTI range

   The originator of the error is not configured to use the ESP-VID
   value in conjunction with GMPLS signaling of <ESP: VID, MAC DA >
   tuples. This may be any switch along the path.

5.2 Invalid MAC Address

   The MAC address is out of a reserved range that cannot be used by
   then node which is processing the address. While almost all MAC
   addresses are valid there are a small number of reserved MAC
   addresses.

5.3 Invalid ERO for UPSTREAM_LABEL Object

    The ERO offered has discontinuities with the identified ESP-
    VID/ESP-MAC DA path in the UPSTREAM_LABEL object.

5.4 Invalid ERO for LABEL_SET Object

   The ERO offered has discontinuities with the identified ESP-VID/ESP-
   MAC DA path in the LABEL_SET object.

5.5 Switch is not ESP P2MP capable

    This error may arise only in P2MP VID Tree allocation.

5.6 Invalid ESP-VID in UPSTREAM_LABEL object

    The ESP-VID in the UPSTREAM_LABEL object for the "asymmetrical ESP-
    VID" P2MP tree did not correspond to the ESP-VID used in previous
    transactions.

6. Deployment Scenarios

   This technique of GMPLS controlled Ethernet switching is applicable
   to all deployment scenarios considered by the design team [CCAMP-
   ETHERNET].


7. Security Considerations



Fedyk et al.              Expires October 2008                [Page 16]


Internet Draft     draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-00.txt

   The architecture assumes that the GMPLS controlled Ethernet subnet
   consists of trusted devices and that the UNI ports to the domain are
   untrusted. Care is required to ensure untrusted access to the trusted
   domain does not occur. Where GMPLS is applied to the control of VLAN
   only, the commonly known techniques for mitigation of Ethernet DOS
   attacks may be required on UNI ports.

8. IANA Considerations

   New values are required for signaling and error codes as indicated.
   This section will be completed in a later version.

9. References

9.1  Normative References

   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
      Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [ARCH] Fedyk, D. Berger, L., Andersson L., "GMPLS Ethernet Label
      Switching Architecture and Framework", work in progress.

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


9.2  Informative References

   [IEEE 802.1Qay] "IEEE standard for Provider Backbone Bridges Traffic
      Engineering", work in progress.

   [RFC4115] Aboul-Magd, O. et.al. "A Differentiated Service Two-Rate,
      Three-Color Marker with Efficient Handling of in-Profile Traffic",
      IETF RFC 4115, July 2005

   [G-8031] ITU-T Draft Recommendation G.8031, Ethernet Protection
      Switching.

   [IEEE 802.1AB] "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
      Networks, Station and Media Access Control Connectivity
      Discovery".

   [IEEE 802.1ag] "IEEE Draft Standard for Connectivity Fault
      Management", work in progress.

   [IEEE 802.1ah] "IEEE standard for Provider Backbone Bridges", work in
      progress.

   [RFC4204] Lang. J. Editor, "Link Management Protocol (LMP)" RFC4204,
      October 2005



Fedyk et al.              Expires October 2008                [Page 17]


Internet Draft     draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-00.txt

   [MEF.6] The Metro Ethernet Forum MEF 6 (2004), "Ethernet Services
      Definitions - Phase I".

   [MEF.10] The Metro Ethernet Forum MEF 10 (2004), "Ethernet Services
      Attributes Phase 1".

   [RFC3270] Le Faucheur, F. et.al., "Multi-Protocol Label Switching
      (MPLS) Support of Differentiated Services" IETF RFC 3270, May
      2002.

   [RFC4875] Aggarwal, R. Ed., "Extensions to RSVP-TE for Point to
      Multipoint TE LSPs", IETF RFC 4875, May 2007

   [PATHCOMP] Farrel, A. et.al., "Path Computation Element (PCE)
      Architecture", work in progress.

   [RFC3985] Bryant, S., Pate, P. et al., "Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-
      to Edge (PWE3) Architecture", IETF RFC 3985, March 2005.

   [RFC4872] Lang et.al., "RSVP-TE Extensions in support of End-to-End
      Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)-based Recovery
      ", RFC 4872, May 2007.

   [RFC4873] Berger, L. et.al.,"MPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, May
      2007.

   [RFC3209] Awduche et.al., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
      Tunnels, IETF RFC 3209, December 2001.

   [Y.1731] ITU-T Draft Recommendation Y.1731(ethoam), " OAM Functions
      and Mechanisms for Ethernet based Networks ", work in progress.

   [ADDRESS] Shimoto, K., Papneja, R., Rabbat, R., "Use of Addresses in
      Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Networks",
      work in progress.

   [CCAMP-ETHERNET] Papadimitriou, D. et.al, "A Framework for
      Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Ethernet", internet draft, draft-
      papadimitriou-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-framework-00.txt, June 2005


10.  Author's Address

   Don Fedyk
   Nortel Networks
   600 Technology Park Drive
   Billerica, MA, 01821
   Email: dwfedyk@nortel.com

   David Allan
   Nortel Networks
   3500 Carling Ave.
   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA

Fedyk et al.              Expires October 2008                [Page 18]


Internet Draft     draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-00.txt

   Email: dallan@nortel.com

   Himanshu Shah
   Ciena
   35 Nagog Park,
   Acton, MA 01720
   Email: hshah@ciena.com

   Nabil Bitar
   Verizon,
   40 Sylvan Rd.,
   Waltham, MA 02451
   Email: nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com

   Attila Takacs
   Ericsson
   1. Laborc u.
   Budapest, HUNGARY 1037
   Email: attila.takacs@ericsson.com

   Diego Caviglia
   Ericsson
   Via Negrone 1/A
   Genoa, Italy 16153
   Email: diego.caviglia@ericsson.com

   Alan McGuire
   BT Group PLC
   OP6 Polaris House,
   Adastral Park, Martlesham Heath,
   Ipswich, Suffolk, IP5 3RE, UK
   Email: alan.mcguire@bt.com

   Nurit Sprecher
   Nokia Siemens Networks,
   GmbH & Co. KG
   COO RTP IE Fixed
   3 Hanagar St. Neve Ne'eman B,
   45241 Hod Hasharon, Israel
   Email: nurit.sprecher@nsn.com

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

11. Intellectual Property Statement

   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

Fedyk et al.              Expires October 2008                [Page 19]


Internet Draft     draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-00.txt

   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.

12. Disclaimer of Validity

   "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.


13. 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.


14. Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Dinesh Mohan, Nigel Bragg, Stephen
   Shew and Sandra Ballarte for their contributions to this document.












Fedyk et al.              Expires October 2008                [Page 20]


Appendix A

Rational and mechanism for PBB_TE Ethernet Forwarding

   This appendix describes work currently being undertaken in the 801.1
   PBB-TE [IEEE 802.1Qay] project. This information is for reference
   only and will be removed when 802.1Qay becomes mature. This text
   captures some of the original rational for changing Ethernet
   forwarding. The PBB-TE [IEEE 802.1Qay] document simply documents the
   PBB-TE data plane.

   Ethernet as specified today is a complete system consisting of a
   data plane and a number of control plane functions. Spanning tree,
   data plane flooding and MAC learning combine to populate forwarding
   tables and produce resilient any-to-any behavior in a bridged
   network.

   Ethernet consists of a very simple and reliable data plane that has
   been optimized and mass produced. By simply disabling some Ethernet
   control plane functionality, it is possible to employ alternative
   control planes and obtain different forwarding behaviors.

   Customer     Provider        Provider
   Bridge/      Bridge          Backbone
                                Bridge

   C-MAC/C-VID------------------802.1Q -------------------C-MAC-CVID
                S-VID-----------802.1ad------------S-VID
                        B-MAC---802.1ah---B-MAC
                        B-VID---802.1ah---B-VID

                     Figure 1 802.1 MAC/VLAN Hierarchy

   Recent works in IETF Pseudo Wire Emulation [RFC3985] and IEEE 802
   are defining a separation of Ethernet functions permitting an
   increasing degree of provider control. The result is that the
   Ethernet service to the customer appears the same, yet the provider
   components and behaviors have become decoupled from the customer
   presentation and the provider has gained control of all VID/DMAC
   endpoints.

   One example of this is the 802.1ah work in hierarchical bridging
   whereby customer Ethernet frames are fully encapsulated into a
   provider Ethernet frame, isolating the customer VID/DMAC space from
   the provider VID/DMAC space. In this case, the forwarding behavior
   of the of the Backbone MAC in the provider's network is as per
   802.1Q.

   The Ethernet data plane provides protocol multiplexing via the ether
   type field which allows encapsulation of different protocols
   supporting various applications. More recently, the Carrier Ethernet
   effort has created provider and customer separation that enables


   Fedyk et.al           Expires October 2008                [Page 21]


Internet Draft     draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-00.txt

   another level of multiplexing. This in effect creates provider MAC
   endpoints in the Ethernet sub-network controlled by the provider. In
   this appendix we concentrate on the provider solutions and therefore
   subsequent references to VLAN, VID and MAC refer to those under
   provider control, be it in the backbone layer of 802.1ah. The
   Customer Ethernet service is the same native Ethernet service with
   functions such as bridging, learning and spanning trees all
   functioning over the provider infrastructure.

   Bridging offers a simple solution for any-to-any connectivity within
   a VLAN partition via the Spanning tree, flooding and MAC learning.
   Spanning tree provides some unnecessary capabilities for P2P
   services and since the Spanning tree must interconnect all MACs with
   the same VLAN IDs (VIDs) it consumes a scarce resource (VIDs). In
   this document we present that it is easier to modify Ethernet to
   scale engineered P2P services and this is the approach we take with
   PBB-TE. (The number of usable VLANs IDs in conventional Ethernet
   bridging is constrained to 4094, therefore the use of VLAN only
   configuration for all forwarding could be limited for some
   applications where large number of P2P connections are required.)
   This is because in Ethernet, each Spanning tree is associated with
   one or more VLAN IDs. Also Port membership in a VLAN is configured
   which controls the connectivity of all MAC interfaces participating
   in the VLAN.

   The roots for PBB-TE capability exist in the Ethernet management
   plane. The management of Ethernet switches provides for static
   configuration of Ethernet forwarding. The Ethernet Control plane
   allows for forwarding entries that are statically provisioned or
   configured. In this document we are expanding the meaning of
   "configured" from an Ethernet Control plane sense to mean either
   provisioned, or controlled by GMPLS. The connectivity aspects of
   Ethernet forwarding is based upon VLANs and MAC addresses. In other
   words the VLAN + DMAC are an Ethernet Label that can be looked up at
   each switch to determine the egress link (or links in the case of
   link aggregation).

   This is a finer granularity than traditional VLAN networks since
   each P2P connection is independent. By provisioning MAC addresses
   independently of Spanning tree in a domain, both the VLAN and the
   VLAN/DMAC configured forwarding can be exploited. This greatly
   extends the scalability of what can be achieved in a pure Ethernet
   bridged sub network.

   The global/domain wide uniqueness and semantics of MAC addresses as
   interface names or multicast group addresses has been preserved. (In
   Ethernet overlap of MAC addresses across VLANs is allowed. However
   for PBB-TE MAC addresses should be unique for all VLANs assigned to
   PBB-TE. With PBB-TE it is an operational choice if the operator uses
   PBT-TE labels out of the global MAC address space or the local admin
   space.) We then redefine the semantics associated with
   administration and uses of VLAN values for the case of explicit
   forwarding such as you get with statically configured Ethernet.

Fedyk et al.              Expires October 2008                [Page 22]


Internet Draft     draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-00.txt


   The PBB_TE is Ethernet Forwarding where configured VID + DMAC
   provide a forwarding table that is consistent with existing PBB and
   Ethernet switching. At the same time it provides domain wide labels
   that can be controlled by a common GMPLS control plane. This makes
   GMPLS control and resource management procedures ideal to create
   paths. The outcome is that the GMPLS control plane can be utilized
   to set up the following atomic modes of connectivity:

          1) P2P connectivity and MP2P multiplexed connectivity based
             on configuration of unicast MAC addresses in conjunction
             with a VID from a set of pre-configured VIDs.
          2) P2MP connectivity based on configuration of multicast MAC
             address in conjunction with a VID from a set of pre-
             configured VIDs. This corresponds to (Source, Group) or
             (S,G) multicast.
          3) P2MP connectivity based on configuration of VID port
             membership. This corresponds to (S,*) or (*,*) multicast
             (where * represents the extent of the VLAN Tree).
          4) MP2MP connectivity based on configuration of VID port
             membership (P2MP trees in which leaves are permitted to
             communicate). Although, we caution that this approach
             poses resilience issues (discussed in section 5) and hence
             is not recommended.


   The modes above are not completely distinct. Some modes involve
   combinations of P2P connections in one direction and MP connectivity
   in the other direction.  Also, more than one mode may be combined in
   a single GMPLS transaction. One example is the incremental addition
   of a leaf to a P2MP tree with a corresponding MP2P return path
   (analogous to a root initiated join).

   In order to realize the above connectivity modes, a partition of the
   VLAN IDs from traditional Ethernet needs to be established. The
   partition allows for a pool of Ethernet labels for manual
   configuration and/or for GMPLS control plane usage. The VID
   partition actually consists of a "configured VID/DMAC range" and
   "configured VID range" since in some instances the label is a VID/
   DMAC and sometimes the label is a VID/Multicast DMAC.

A 1. Overview of configuration of VID/DMAC tuples

   Statically configured MAC and VID entries are a complete 60 bit
   lookup. The basic operation of an Ethernet switch is filtering on
   VID and forwarding on DMAC. The resulting operation is the same as
   performing a full 60 bit lookup (VID (12) + DMAC(48)) for P2P
   operations, only requiring uniqueness of the full 60 bits for
   forwarding to resolve correctly. This is an Ethernet domain wide
   label.

   Complete route freedom is available for each domain wide label (60
   bit VLAN/DMAC tuple) and the ability to define multiple connectivity

Fedyk et al.              Expires October 2008                [Page 23]


Internet Draft     draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-00.txt

   instances or paths per DMAC for each of the VIDs in the "configured
   VID/DMAC range".

   The semantics of MAC addresses are preserved, and simply broaden the
   potential interpretations of VLAN ID from spanning tree identifier
   to topology instance identifier. Therefore, operation of both
   standard bridging and configured unicast/multicast operation is
   available side by side. The VID space is partitioned and a range of
   VIDs is allocated(say 'n' VIDs) as only significant when combined
   with a configured DMAC address (the aforementioned "configured
   VID/DMAC range" of VIDs). A VID in that range is considered as an
   individual connectivity instance identifier for a configured P2P
   path terminating at the associated DMAC address. Or in the case of
   P2MP, a P2MP multicast tree corresponding to the destination
   multicast group address. Note that this is destination based
   forwarding consistent with how Ethernet works today. The only thing
   changed is the mechanism of populating the forwarding tables.

   Ethernet MAC addresses are typically globally unique since the 48
   bits consists of 24 bit Organizational Unique Identifier and a 24
   bit serial number. There is also a bit set aside for Multicast and
   for local addresses out of the OUI field. We define domain wide as
   within a single organization, or more strictly within a single
   network within an organization. For provider MAC addresses that will
   only be used in a domain wide sense we can define MAC addresses out
   of a either the local space or the global space since they both have
   the domain wide unique property. When used in the context of GMPLS,
   it is useful to think of a domain wide pool of labels where switches
   are assigned a set of MAC addresses. These labels are assigned
   traffic that terminates on the respective switches.

   It is also worth noting that unique identification of source in the
   form of the ESP-MAC SA is carried e2e in the MAC header. So although
   we have a 60 bit domain wide unique label, it may be shared by
   multiple sources and the full connection identifier for an
   individual P2P instance is 108 bits (ESP-MAC SA, VID and DMAC). The
   ESP-MAC SA is not referenced in forwarding operations but it would
   allow additional context for tracing or other operations at the end
   of the path.

   For multicast group addresses, the VID/DMAC concatenated label can
   be distributed by the source but label assignment (as it encodes
   global multicast group information) requires coordination within the
   GMPLS controlled domain.

   As mentioned earlier, this technique results in a single unique and
   invariant identifier, in our case a VID/DMAC label associated with
   the path termination or the multicast group.  There can be up to
   4094 labels to any one MAC address.  However, practically, from
   Ethernet network wide aspect; there would be only a handful of VLANs
   allocated for PBB-TE. In addition, all 48 bits are not completely
   available for the MAC addresses.  One way to maximize the space is
   to use the locally administered space. This is a large number for

Fedyk et al.              Expires October 2008                [Page 24]


Internet Draft     draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-00.txt

   P2P applications and even larger when shared or multiplexed
   forwarding is leveraged. In practice, most network scaling
   requirements may be met via allocation of only a small portion of
   the VID space, to the configured VID/DMAC range. The result is
   minimal impact on the number of remaining bridging VLANs that can be
   concurrently supported.

   In order to use this unique 60 bit label, we disable the normal
   mechanisms by which Ethernet populates the forwarding table for the
   allocated range of VIDs. When a path is setup, for a specific label
   across a contiguous sequence of Ethernet switches, a unidirectional
   connection is the functional building block for an Ethernet Label
   Switched path (Eth-LSP).

   In P2P mode a bidirectional path is composed of two unidirectional
   paths that are created with a single RSVP-TE session. The technique
   does not require the VID to be common in both directions. However,
   keeping in line with regular Ethernet these paths are symmetrical
   such that a single bidirectional connection is composed of two
   unidirectional paths that have common routing (i.e. traverse the
   same switches and links) in the network and hence share the same
   fate.

   In P2MP mode a bidirectional path is composed of a unidirectional
   multicast tree and a number of P2P paths from the leaves of the tree
   to the root. Similarly these paths may have bandwidth and must have
   common routing as in the P2P case.

   There are a few modifications required to standard Ethernet to make
   this approach robust:

   1. In Standard Ethernet, discontinuities in forwarding table
   configuration in the path of a connection will normally result in
   packets being flooded as "unknown". For configured operation (e.g.
   PBB-TE), unknown addresses are indicative of a fault or
   configuration error and the flooding of these is undesirable in
   meshed topologies. Therefore flooding of "unknown" unicast/multicast
   MAC addresses must be disabled for the "configured VID/DMAC range".

   2. MAC learning is not required, and although it will not interfere
   with management/control population of the forwarding tables, since
   static entries are not overridden, it appears prudent to explicitly
   disable MAC learning for the configured VID/DMAC and VID range.

   3. Spanning tree is disabled for the allocated VID/DMAC and VID
   range and port blocking must be disabled to achieve complete
   configured route freedom. As noted earlier, it is a control plane
   requirement to ensure configured paths are loop free.

   All three modifications described above are within the scope of
   acceptable configuration options defined in IEEE802.1Q
   specification.


Fedyk et al.              Expires October 2008                [Page 25]


Internet Draft     draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-00.txt


A 2.    Overview of configuration of VID port membership

   Procedures almost identical to that for configuration of P2P
   VID/DMAC tuples can also be used for the incremental configuration
   of P2MP VID trees. For the replication of forwarding in this case
   the label is common for the multipoint destinations. The MAC field
   is set to multicast address and is common to the multicast
   community. The VID is a distinguisher common to the multicast
   community. The signaling procedures are as per that for [RFC4875].

   Since VID translation is relatively new and is not a ubiquitously
   deployed capability, we consider a VID to be a domain global value.
   Therefore, the VID value to be used by the originating switch may be
   assigned by management and nominally is required to be invariant
   across the network. The ability to indicate permissibility of
   translation will be addressed in a future version of the document.

   A procedure known as "asymmetrical VID" may be employed to constrain
   connectivity (root to leaves, and leaves to root only) when switches
   also support shared VLAN learning (or SVL). This would be consistent
   with the root as a point of failure.

A 3. OAM Aspects

   Robustness is enhanced with the addition of data plane OAM to
   provide both fault and performance management.

   For the configured VID/DMAC unicast mode of behavior, the hardware
   performs unicast packet forwarding of known MAC addresses exactly as
   Ethernet currently operates. The OAM currently defined, [802.1ag and
   Y.1731] can also be reused without modification of the protocols.
   However currently if the VID for PBB-TE is different in each
   direction some modification of the OAM may be required.

   An additional benefit of domain wide path identifiers, for data
   plane forwarding, is the tight coupling of the 60 bit unique
   connection ID (VID/DMAC) and the associated OAM packets. It is a
   simple matter to determine a broken path or misdirected packet since
   the unique connection ID cannot be altered on the Eth-LSP. This is
   in fact one of the most powerful and unique aspects of the domain
   wide label for any type of rapid diagnosis of the data plane faults.
   It is also independent of the control plane so it works equally well
   for provisioned or GMPLS controlled paths.

   Bidirectional transactions (e.g. ETH-LB) and reverse direction
   transactions MAY have a different VID for each direction. PBB-TE is
   specifying this aspect of CFM.

   For configured multicast VID/DMAC mode, the current versions of
   802.1ag and Y.1731] make no representation as to how PDUs which are
   not using unicast addresses or which use OAM reserved multicast


Fedyk et al.              Expires October 2008                [Page 26]


Internet Draft     draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-00.txt

   addresses are handled. Therefore this specification makes no
   representation as to whether such trees can be instrumented.

   When configured VID mode of operation is used PBB-TE can be forced
   to use the same VID in both directions, emulating the current
   Ethernet data plane and the OAM functions as defined in the current
   versions of 802.1ag and Y.1731 can be used with no restriction.

A 4. QOS Aspects

   Ethernet VLAN tags include priority tagging in the form of the
   802.1p priority bits. When combined with configuration of the paths
   via management or control plane, priority tagging produces the
   Ethernet equivalent of an MPLS-TE E-LSPs [RFC3270]. Priority tagged
   Ethernet PDUs self-identify the required queuing discipline
   independent of the configured connectivity.

   It should be noted that the consequence of this is that there is a
   common COS model across the different modes of configured operation
   specified in this document.

   The actual QOS objects required for signaling will be in a future
   version of this memo.

A 5.  Resiliency Aspects

A 5.1. E2E Path protection

   One plus One(1+1) protection is a primary LSP with a disjoint
   dedicated back up LSP. One for one (1:1) protection is a primary LSP
   with a disjoint backup LSP that may share resources with other LSPs.
   One plus One and One for One Automatic Protection Switching
   strategies are supported. Such schemes offer:
          1) Engineered disjoint protection paths that can protect both
             directions of traffic.
          2) Fast switchover due to tunable OAM mechanisms.
          3) Revertive path capability when primary paths are restored.
          4) Option for redialing paths under failure.

   Specific procedures for establishment of protection paths and
   associating paths into "protection groups" are TBD.

   Note that E2E path protection is able to respond to failures with a
   number of configurable intervals. The loss of CCM OAM frames in the
   data plane can trigger paths to switch. In the case of CCM OAM
   frames, the detection time is typically 3.5 times the CCM interval
   plus the propagation delay from the fault.







Fedyk et al.              Expires October 2008                [Page 27]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.124, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/