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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 RFC 3471

Network Working Group        Peter Ashwood-Smith (Nortel Networks Corp.)
Internet Draft                          Ayan Banerjee (Calient Networks)
Expiration Date: May 2001                    Lou Berger (Movaz Networks)
                                      Greg Bernstein (Ciena Corporation)
                                           John Drake (Calient Networks)
                                           Yanhe Fan (Axiowave Networks)
                               Kireeti Kompella (Juniper Networks, Inc.)
                                                       Eric Mannie (GTS)
                                     Jonathan P. Lang (Calient Networks)
                                        Bala Rajagopalan (Tellium, Inc.)
                                           Yakov Rekhter (Cisco Systems)
                                           Debanjan Saha (Tellium, Inc.)
                                                 Vishal Sharma (Tellabs)
                                          George Swallow (Cisco Systems)
                                              Z. Bo Tang (Tellium, Inc.)

                                                           November 2000


          Generalized MPLS - Signaling Functional Description


              draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-01.txt

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.  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."

   To view the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the
   "1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in an Internet-Drafts Shadow
   Directory, see http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

Abstract

   This document describes extensions to MPLS signaling required to
   support Generalized MPLS.  Generalized MPLS extends MPLS to encompass
   time-division (e.g. SONET ADMs), wavelength (optical lambdas) and
   spatial switching (e.g. incoming port or fiber to outgoing port or
   fiber).  This document presents a functional description of the
   extensions.  Protocol specific formats and mechanisms are specified
   in [GMPLS-RSVP] and [GMPLS-LDP].




Berger, Ashwood-Smith, editors                                  [Page 1]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-01.txt November 2000


Contents

 1    Introduction  ................................................   3
 2    Overview   ...................................................   4
 3    Label Related Formats   ......................................   6
 3.1  Generalized Label Request  ...................................   6
 3.2  Generalized Label  ...........................................  12
 3.3  Waveband Switching  ..........................................  17
 3.4  Suggested Label  .............................................  18
 3.5  Label Set  ...................................................  19
 4    Bidirectional LSPs  ..........................................  21
 4.1  Required Information  ........................................  22
 4.2  Contention Resolution  .......................................  22
 5    Explicit Label Control  ......................................  25
 5.1  Required Information  ........................................  26
 6    Acknowledgments  .............................................  26
 7    Security Considerations  .....................................  27
 8    References  ..................................................  27
 9    Authors' Addresses  ..........................................  28




















Berger, Ashwood-Smith, editors                                  [Page 2]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-01.txt November 2000


Changes from previous version:

o  Moved protocol specific details into two documents, one for RSVP-TE
   and one for CR-LDP.
o  Clarified Label Set
o  Fixed bandwidth encodings
o  Minor text cleanup



1. Introduction

   The Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) architecture [MPLS-ARCH] has
   been defined to support the forwarding of data based on a label. In
   this architecture, Label Switching Routers (LSRs) were assumed to
   have a forwarding plane that is capable of (a) recognizing either
   packet or cell boundaries, and (b) being able to process either
   packet headers (for LSRs capable of recognizing packet boundaries) or
   cell headers (for LSRs capable of recognizing cell boundaries).

   The original architecture has recently been extended to include LSRs
   whose forwarding plane recognizes neither packet, nor cell
   boundaries, and therefore, can't forward data based on the
   information carried in either packet or cell headers. Specifically,
   such LSRs include devices where the forwarding decision is based on
   time slots, wavelengths, or physical ports.

   Given the above, LSRs, or more precisely interfaces on LSRs, can be
   subdivided into the following classes:

   1. Interfaces that recognize packet/cell boundaries and can forward
      data based on the content of the packet/cell header.  Examples
      include interfaces on routers that forward data based on the
      content of the "shim" header, interfaces on ATM-LSRs that forward
      data based on the ATM VPI/VCI.  Such interfaces are referred to as
      Packet-Switch Capable (PSC).

   2. Interfaces that forward data based on the data's time slot in a
      repeating cycle.  An example of such an interface is an interface
      on a SONET Cross-Connect.  Such interfaces are referred to as
      Time-Division Multiplex Capable (TDM).

   3. Interfaces that forward data based on the wavelength on which the
      data is received.  An example of such an interface is an interface
      on an Optical Cross-Connect that can operate at the level of an
      individual wavelength.  Such interfaces are referred to as Lambda
      Switch Capable (LSC).




Berger, Ashwood-Smith, editors                                  [Page 3]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-01.txt November 2000


   4. Interfaces that forward data based on a position of the data in
      the real world physical spaces.  An example of such an interface
      is an interface on an Optical Cross-Connect that can operate at
      the level of a single (or multiple) fibers.  Such interfaces are
      referred to as Fiber-Switch Capable (FSC).

   Using the concept of nested LSPs (by using label stack) allows the
   system to scale by building a forwarding hierarchy.  At the top of
   this hierarchy are FSC interfaces, followed by LSC interfaces,
   followed by TDM interfaces, followed by PSC interfaces. This way, an
   LSP that starts and ends on a PSC interface can be nested (together
   with other LSPs) into an LSP that starts and ends on a TDM interface.
   This LSP, in turn, can be nested (together with other LSPs) into an
   LSP that starts and ends on an LSC interface, which in turn can be
   nested (together with other LSPs) into an LSP that starts and ends on
   a FSC interface.  See [MPLS-HIERARCHY] for more information on LSP
   hierarchies.

   The establishment of LSPs that span only the first class of
   interfaces is defined in the [LDP, CR-LDP, RSVP-TE].  This document
   presents a functional description of the extensions needed to support
   each of the four classes of interfaces.  Only signaling protocol
   independent formats and definitions are provided in this document.
   Protocol specific formats are defined in [GMPLS-RSVP] and [GMPLS-
   LDP].


2. Overview

   Generalized MPLS differs from traditional MPLS in that it supports
   multiple types of switching, i.e., the addition of support for TDM,
   lambda, and fiber (port) switching.  The support for the additional
   types of switching has driven generalized MPLS to extend certain base
   functions of traditional MPLS and, in some cases, to add
   functionality.  These changes and additions impact basic LSP
   properties, how labels are requested and communicated, the
   unidirectional nature of LSPs, how errors are propagated, and
   information provided for synchronizing the ingress and egress.

   In traditional MPLS Traffic Engineering, links traversed by an LSP
   can include an intermix of links with heterogeneous label encodings.
   For example, an LSP may span links between routers, links between
   routers and ATM-LSRs, and links between ATM-LSRs.  Generalized MPLS
   extends this by including links where the label is encoded as a time
   slot, or a wavelength, or a position in the real world physical
   space.  Just like with traditional MPLS TE, where not all LSRs are
   capable of recognizing (IP) packet boundaries (e.g., an ATM-LSR) in
   their forwarding plane, generalized MPLS includes support for LSRs



Berger, Ashwood-Smith, editors                                  [Page 4]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-01.txt November 2000


   that can't recognize (IP) packet boundaries in their forwarding
   plane.  In traditional MPLS TE an LSP that carries IP has to start
   and end on a router.  Generalized MPLS extends this by requiring an
   LSP to start and end on similar type of LSRs.  Also, in generalized
   MPLS the type of a payload that can be carried by an LSP is extended
   to allow such payloads as SONET/SDH, or 1 or 10Gb Ethernet.  These
   changes from traditional MPLS are reflected in how labels are
   requested and communicated in generalized MPLS, see Sections 3.1 and
   3.2.  A special case of Lambda switching, called Waveband switching
   is also described in Section 3.3.

   Another basic difference between traditional and non-PSC types of
   generalized MPLS LSPs, is that bandwidth allocation for an LSP can be
   performed only in discrete units, see Section 3.1.3.  There are also
   likely to be (much) fewer labels on non-PSC links than on PSC links.
   Note that the use of Forwarding Adjacencies (FA), see [MPLS-
   HIERARCHY], provides a mechanism that may improve bandwidth
   utilization, when bandwidth allocation can be performed only in
   discrete units, as well as a mechanism to aggregate forwarding state,
   thus allowing the number of required labels to be reduced.

   Generalized MPLS allows for a label to be suggested by an upstream
   node, see Section 3.4.  This suggestion may be overridden by a
   downstream node but, in some cases, at the cost of higher LSP setup
   time.  The suggested label is valuable when establishing LSPs through
   certain kinds of optical equipment where there may be a lengthy (in
   electrical terms) delay in configuring the switching fabric.  For
   example micro mirrors may have to be elevated or moved, and this
   physical motion and subsequent damping takes time.  If the labels and
   hence switching fabric are configured in the reverse direction (the
   norm) the MAPPING/Resv message may need to be delayed by 10's of
   milliseconds per hop in order to establish a usable forwarding path.

   Generalized MPLS extends on the notion of restricting the range of
   labels that may be selected by a downstream node, see Section 3.5.
   In generalized MPLS, an ingress or other upstream node may restrict
   the labels that may be used by an LSP along either a single hop or
   along the whole LSP path.  This feature is driven from the optical
   domain where there are cases where wavelengths used by the path must
   be restricted either to a small subset of possible wavelengths, or to
   one specific wavelength.  This requirement occurs because some
   equipment may only be able to generate a small set of the wavelengths
   that intermediate equipment may be able to switch, or because
   intermediate equipment may not be able to switch a wavelength at all,
   being only able to redirect it to a different fiber.

   While traditional traffic engineered MPLS (and even LDP) are
   unidirectional, generalized MPLS supports the establishment of



Berger, Ashwood-Smith, editors                                  [Page 5]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-01.txt November 2000


   bidirectional LSPs, see Section 4.  The need for bidirectional LSPs
   comes from non-PSC applications.  There are multiple reasons why such
   LSPs are needed, particularly possible resource contention when
   allocating reciprocal LSPs via separate signaling sessions, and
   simplifying failure restoration procedures in the non-PSC case.
   Bidirectional LSPs also have the benefit of lower setup latency and
   lower number of messages required during setup.

   Generalized MPLS also supports the termination of an LSP on a
   specific egress port, see Section 5.  [GMPLS-RSVP] also supports an
   RSVP specific mechanism for rapid failure notification.


3. Label Related Formats

   To deal with the widening scope of MPLS into the optical and time
   domain, several new forms of "label" are required.  These new forms
   of label are collectively referred to as a "generalized label".  A
   generalized label contains enough information to allow the receiving
   node to program its cross connect, regardless of the type of this
   cross connect, such that the ingress segments of the path are
   properly joined.  This section defines a generalized label request, a
   generalized label, support for waveband switching, suggested label
   and label sets.

   Note that since the nodes sending and receiving the new form of label
   know what kinds of link they are using, the generalized label does
   not contain a type field, instead the nodes are expected to know from
   context what type of label to expect.


3.1. Generalized Label Request

   The Generalized Label Request supports communication of
   characteristics required to support the LSP being requested.  These
   characteristics include desired link protection, LSP encoding, and
   LSP payload.

   The Generalized Label Request indicates the link protection type
   desired for the LSP.  If a particular protection type, i.e., 1+1, or
   1:N, is requested, then a connection request is processed only if the
   desired protection type can be honored.  Note that the protection
   capabilities of a link may be advertised in routing, see [GMPLS-ISIS,
   GMPLS-OSPF].  Path computation algorithms may take this information
   into account when computing paths for setting up LSPs.

   The Generalized Label Request also carries an LSP encoding parameter,
   called LSP Encoding Type.  This parameter indicates the encoding



Berger, Ashwood-Smith, editors                                  [Page 6]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-01.txt November 2000


   type, e.g., SONET/SDH/GigE etc., that will be used with the data
   associated with the LSP.  The LSP Encoding Type represents the nature
   of the LSP, and not the nature of the links that the LSP traverses.
   A link may support a set of encoding formats, where support means
   that a link is able to carry and switch a signal of one or more of
   these encoding formats depending on the resource availability and
   capacity of the link.  For example, consider an LSP signaled with
   "photonic" encoding.   It is expected that such an LSP would be
   supported with no electrical conversion and no knowledge of the
   modulation and speed by the transit nodes.  All other formats require
   framing knowledge, and field parameters are broken into the framing
   type and speed as shown below.


3.1.1. Generalized Label Request Information


   The information carried in a Generalized Label Request is:

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | LSP Enc. Type |Link Prot.Flags|             G-PID             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      LSP Encoding Type: 8 bits

         Indicates the encoding of the LSP being requested.  The
         following shows permitted values and their meaning:

                   Value       Type
                   -----       ----
                     1         Packet
                     2         Ethernet
                     3         ANSI PDH
                     4         ETSI PDH
                     5         SDH
                     6         SONET
                     7         Digital Wrapper
                     8         Lambda (photonic)
                     9         Fiber

         The ANSI PDH and ETSI PDH types designate these respective
         networking technologies.  DS1 and DS3 are examples of ANSI PDH
         LSPs.  An E1 LSP would be ETSI PDH.  The Lambda encoding type
         refers to the switching of wavelengths.  The Fiber encoding
         type refers to switching at the fiber port level.




Berger, Ashwood-Smith, editors                                  [Page 7]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-01.txt November 2000


      Link Protection Flags: 8 bits

         Link Protection Flags indicate the desired protection level(s)
         for each link along the LSP.  Note that the flags are distinct
         from MPLS-level LSP protection, see [RECOVERY].  A value of 0
         implies that this connection does not care about which, if any,
         link protection is used.  More than one bit may be set to
         indicate when multiple protection types are acceptable.  When
         multiple bits are set and multiple protection types are
         available, the choice of protection type is a local (policy)
         decision.

         The following flags are defined:

            0x01  Unprotected

               Indicates that the LSP should not use any link layer
               protection.

            0x02  Shared

               Indicates that a shared link layer protection scheme,
               such as 1:N protection, should be used to support the
               LSP.

            0x04  Dedicated 1:1

               Indicates that a dedicated link layer protection scheme,
               i.e., 1:1 protection, should be used to support the LSP.

            0x08  Dedicated 1+1

               Indicates that a dedicated link layer protection scheme,
               i.e., 1+1 protection, should be used to support the LSP.

            0x10  Enhanced

               Indicates that a protection scheme that is more reliable
               than Dedicated 1+1 should be used, e.g., 4 fiber BLSR/MS-
               SPRING.











Berger, Ashwood-Smith, editors                                  [Page 8]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-01.txt November 2000


      Generalized PID (G-PID): 16 bits

         An identifier of the payload carried by an LSP, i.e. an
         identifier of the client layer of that LSP.  This must be
         interpreted according to the technology encoding type of the
         LSP and is used by the nodes at the endpoints of the LSP.
         Standard Ethertype values are used for packet and Ethernet
         LSPs; other values are:

          Value   Type                                   Technology
          -----   ----                                   ----------
            0     Unknown                                All
            1     DS1 SF                                 ANSI-PDH
            2     DS1 ESF                                ANSI-PDH
            3     DS3 M23                                ANSI-PDH
            4     DS3 C-Bit Parity                       ANSI-PDH
            5     Asynchronous mapping of E4             SDH
            6     Asynchronous mapping of DS3/T3         SDH
            7     Asynchronous mapping of E3             SDH
            8     Bit synchronous mapping of E3          SDH
            9     Byte synchronous mapping of E3         SDH
           10     Asynchronous mapping of DS2/T2         SDH
           11     Bit synchronous mapping of DS2/T2      SDH
           12     Byte synchronous mapping of DS2/T2     SDH
           13     Asynchronous mapping of E1             SDH
           14     Byte synchronous mapping of E1         SDH
           15     Byte synchronous mapping of 31 * DS0   SDH
           16     Asynchronous mapping of DS1/T1         SDH
           17     Bit synchronous mapping of DS1/T1      SDH
           18     Byte synchronous mapping of DS1/T1     SDH
           19     Same as 12 but in a VC-12              SDH
           20     Same as 13 but in a VC-12              SDH
           21     Same as 14 but in a VC-12              SDH
           22     ATM mapping                            SDH, SONET
           22     DS1 SF Asynchronous                    SONET
           23     DS1 ESF Asynchronous                   SONET
           24     DS3 M23 Asynchronous                   SONET
           25     DS3 C-Bit Parity Asynchronous          SONET
           26     VT                                     SONET
           27     POS                                    SONET
           28     STS                                    SONET
           29     Ethernet                               Lambda, Fiber
           30     SDH                                    Lambda, Fiber
           31     SONET                                  Lambda, Fiber
           32     Digital Wrapper                        Lambda, Fiber
           33     Lambda                                 Fiber





Berger, Ashwood-Smith, editors                                  [Page 9]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-01.txt November 2000


3.1.2. Generalized Label Request with SONET/SDH Label Range

   The Generalized Label Request with SONET/SDH Label Range object/TLV
   is used to represent specific characteristics related to the two TDM
   technologies. If the RGT, RT, and RNC, fields are all set to zero, it
   means that no concatenation, bundling or transparency is requested.
   If the requested LSP is itself a grouping of several components (e.g.
   a SONET concatenation), it is assumed that all components have the
   same characteristics.  Note that the bandwidth carried in the
   signaling messages, see Section 3.1.4, are the aggregate bandwidth;
   in the instance where multiple components are signaled for, the
   individual component bandwidth is obtained by dividing this
   aggregated value by the requested number of components.

   The information carried in a Generalized Label Request with SONET/SDH
   Label Range  is:

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | LSP Enc. Type |Link Prot.Flags|             G-PID             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  RGT  |   RT  |    Reserved   |              RNC              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      LSP Encoding Type: 8 bits

         See Section 3.1.1.

      Link Protection Flags: 8 bits

         See Section 3.1.1.

      Generalized PID (G-PID): 16 bits

         See Section 3.1.1.















Berger, Ashwood-Smith, editors                                 [Page 10]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-01.txt November 2000


      Requested Grouping Type (RGT): 4 bits

         This field indicates the SDH/SONET type of grouping requested
         for the LSP, it is used to constraint the type of
         concatenation. The values are defined in the following table:

          Value    Grouping type
          -----    ----------------------------------
             0     (Implies no concatenation/bundling when RNC = RT = 0)
             1     Virtual concatenation
             2     Contiguous standard concatenation
             3     Contiguous arbitrary concatenation
             4     Bundle (group of individual signals)

      Requested Transparency (RT): 4 bits

         This field indicates the type of SDH/SONET transparency
         ("emulation") requested for that LSP. The values are defined in
         the following table:

         Value   Requested transparency
         -----   ----------------------------------------------
          0      (Implies no concatenation/bundling when RNC = RGT = 0)
          1      SDH Regenerator Section/SONET Section transparency
          2      SDH Multiplex Section/SONET Line transparency
          3      SDH Path/SONET Path transparency

      Requested Number of Components (RNC): 16 bits

         This field indicates the number of identical SDH/SONET signal
         types that are requested to be concatenated or inverse
         multiplexed in that LSP, as specified in the previous field. In
         these cases, the bandwidth of each component of that
         concatenation/bundling is obtained by dividing the aggregate
         bandwidth by the number of components requested. It is assumed
         that all these components have identical characteristics. This
         field is set to zero if non concatenation or bundling is
         requested.


3.1.3. Bandwidth Encoding

   Bandwidth encodings are carried in in 32 bit number in IEEE floating
   point format (the unit is bytes per second).  For non-packet LSPs, it
   is useful to define discrete values to identify the bandwidth of the
   LSP.  Some typical values for the requested bandwidth are enumerated
   below.  Additional values will be defined as needed.  Bandwidth
   encoding values are carried in a per protocol specific manner, see



Berger, Ashwood-Smith, editors                                 [Page 11]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-01.txt November 2000


   [GMPLS-RSVP] and [GMPLS-LDP].

     Signal Type   (Bit-rate)              Value (Bytes/Sec)
                                         (IEEE Floating point)
      -----------   -----------             ------------
             DS0  (0.064 Mbps)              0x45FA0000
             DS1  (1.544 Mbps)              0x483C7A00
              E1  (2.048 Mbps)              0x487A0000
             DS2  (6.312 Mbps)              0x4940A080
              E2  (8.448 Mbps)              0x4980E800
        Ethernet  (10.00 Mbps)              0x49989680
              E3  (34.368 Mbps)             0x4A831A80
             DS3  (44.736 Mbps)             0x4AAAA780
           STS-1  (51.84 Mbps)              0x4AC5C100
   Fast Ethernet  (100.00 Mbps)             0x4B3EBC20
              E4  (139.264 Mbps)            0x4B84D000
      OC-3/STM-1  (155.52 Mbps)             0x4B9450C0
     OC-12/STM-4  (622.08 Mbps)             0x4C9450C0
            GigE  (1000.00 Mbps)            0x4CEE6B28
           OC-48  (2488.32 Mbps)            0x4D9450C0
          OC-192  (9953.28 Mbps)            0x4E9450C0
      10GigE-LAN  (10000.00 Mbps)           0x4E9502F9


3.2. Generalized Label

   The Generalized Label extends the traditional label by allowing the
   representation of not only labels which travel in-band with
   associated data packets, but also labels which identify time-slots,
   wavelengths, or space division multiplexed positions.  For example,
   the Generalized Label may carry a label that represents (a) a single
   fiber in a bundle, (b) a single waveband within fiber, (c) a single
   wavelength within a waveband (or fiber), or (d) a set of time-slots
   within a wavelength (or fiber).  It may also carry a label that
   represents a generic MPLS label, a Frame Relay label, or an ATM label
   (VCI/VPI).

   A Generalized Label does not identify the "class" to which the label
   belongs.  This is implicit in the multiplexing capabilities of the
   link on which the label is used.

   A Generalized Label only carries a single level of label, i.e., it is
   non-hierarchical.  When multiple levels of label (LSPs within LSPs)
   are required, each LSP must be established separately, see [MPLS-
   HIERARCHY].

   Each Generalized Label object carries a variable length label
   parameter.



Berger, Ashwood-Smith, editors                                 [Page 12]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-01.txt November 2000


3.2.1. Required Information


   The information carried in a Generalized Label is:

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                             Label                             |
      |                              ...                              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Label: Variable

         Carries label information.  The semantics of this field depends
         on the type of the link over which the label is used.


3.2.1.1. SDH and SONET Labels

   SDH and SONET each define a multiplexing structure. These two
   structures are trees whose roots are respectively an STM-N or an STS-
   N; and whose leaves are the signals (time-slots) that can be
   transported and switched, i.e. a VC-x or a VT-x. A label will
   identify the type of a particular signal and its exact position in a
   multiplexing structure (both are related).

   These multiplexing structures will be used as naming trees to create
   unique multiplex entry names or labels. Since the SONET multiplexing
   structure may be seen as a subset of the SDH multiplexing structure,
   the same format of label is used for SDH and SONET. As explained
   before (section 3.2), a label does not identify the "class" to which
   the label belongs. This is implicitly determined by the link on which
   the label is used. However, the encoding specified hereafter makes
   the direct distinction between SDH and SONET.

   In case of signal concatenation or bundling, a list of labels may
   appear in the Label field of a Generalized Label.

   In case of virtual concatenation, the explicit list of all signals in
   the concatenation is given. The signals identified by these labels
   are virtually concatenated to form the SDH or SONET signal trail. The
   above representation limits virtual concatenation to remain within a
   single (component) link.

   In case of any type of contiguous concatenation (e.g. standard or
   arbitrary SONET concatenation), only one label appears in the Label
   field. That label is the lowest signal of the contiguously



Berger, Ashwood-Smith, editors                                 [Page 13]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-01.txt November 2000


   concatenated signal. The bandwidth of the LSP request indicates the
   number of labels to be concatenated to form the SDH or SONET signal
   trail. By lowest signal we mean the one having the lowest label when
   compared as integer values, i.e. the first component signal of the
   concatenated signal encountered when descending the tree.

   In case of bundling, the explicit list of all signals that take part
   in the bundling is given. An example of bundling is inverse
   multiplexing, it is useful when a higher order signal needs to be
   transported over a number of lower order signals, e.g. when a 10Gbps
   signal must be transported over four 2.5Gbps signals. In that case,
   the lower order signals must follow exactly the same path, and be
   treated in the same way, in order to achieve the same characteristics
   (e.g. delay). To support inverse multiplexing, a request is made to
   open in parallel and in one single operation several LSPs at the same
   time.

   The format of the label for SDH and/or SONET TDM-LSR link is:


      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |               S               |   U   |   K   |   L   |   M   |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   For SDH, this is an extension of the numbering scheme defined in
   G.707 section 7.3, i.e. the (K, L, M) numbering. For SONET, the U and
   K fields are not significant and must be set to zero. Only the S, L
   and M fields are significant for SONET and have a similar meaning as
   for SDH.

   Each letter indicates a possible branch number starting at the parent
   node in the multiplex structure. Branches are considered as numbered
   in increasing order, starting from the top of the multiplexing
   structure. The numbering starts at 1, zero is used to indicate a non-
   significant field.

   When a field is not significant in a particular context it MUST be
   set to zero when transmitted, and MUST be ignored when received. This
   simple rule allows distinguishing very easily between an SDH label
   and an SONET label. A label with U=0 will always indicate a SONET
   label. This is a nice feature for debugging purposes. Note that it is
   easier to test U and K together, rather than only the U field alone,
   since they fit exactly in the third octet of the label.






Berger, Ashwood-Smith, editors                                 [Page 14]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-01.txt November 2000


   1. S is the index of a particular STM-1/STS-1 signal. S=1->N
      indicates a specific STM-1/STS-1 inside an STM-N/STS-N
      multiplex. For example, S=1 indicates the first STM-1/STS-1,
      and S=N indicates the last STM-1/STS-1 of this multiplex.  S=0
      is invalid.

   2. U is only significant for SDH and must be ignored for SONET. It
      indicates a specific VC inside a given STM-1. U=1 indicates a
      single VC-4, while U=2->4 indicates a specific VC-3 inside the
      given STM-1.

   3. K is only significant for SDH and must be ignored for SONET. It
      indicates a specific branch of a VC-4. K=1 indicates that the
      VC-4 is not further sub- divided and contains a C-4. K=2->4
      indicates a specific TUG-3 inside the VC-4. K is not
      significant when the STM-1 is divided into VC-3s (easy to read
      and test).

   4. L indicates a specific branch of a TUG-3, VC-3 or STS-1 SPE. It
      is not significant for an unstructured VC-4. L=1 indicates that
      the TUG-3/VC-3/STS-1 SPE is not further sub-divided and
      contains a VC-3/C-3 in SDH or the equivalent in SONET. L=2->8
      indicates a specific TUG-2/VT Group inside the corresponding
      higher order signal.

   5. M indicates a specific branch of a TUG-2/VT Group. It is not
      significant for an unstructured VC-4, TUG-3, VC-3 or STS-1
      SPE. M=1 indicates that the TUG-2/VT Group is not further
      sub-divided and contains a VC-2/VT-6. M=2->3 indicates a
      specific VT-3 inside the corresponding VT Group, these values
      MUST NOT be used for SDH since there is no equivalent of VT-3
      with SDH. M=4->6 indicates a specific VC-12/VT-2 inside the
      corresponding TUG-2/VT Group. M=7->10 indicates a specific
      VC-11/VT-1.5 inside the corresponding TUG-2/VT Group. Note that
      M=0 denotes an unstructured VC-4, VC-3 or STS-1 SPE (easy for
      debugging).















Berger, Ashwood-Smith, editors                                 [Page 15]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-01.txt November 2000


   The M encoding is summarized in the following table:

       M           SDH                             SONET
      ----------------------------------------------------------
       0           unstructured VC-4/VC-3  unstructured STS-1 SPE
       1           VC-2                            VT-6
       2           -                               1st VT-3
       3           -                               2nd VT-3
       4           1st VC-12                       1st VT-2
       5           2nd VC-12                       2nd VT-2
       6           3rd VC-12                       3rd VT-2
       7           1st VC-11                       1st VT-1.5
       8           2nd VC-11                       2nd VT-1.5
       9           3rd VC-11                       3rd VT-1.5
       10          4th VC-11                       4th VT-1.5

   For instance,

   Example 1: S>0, U=1, K=1, L=0, M=0
   Denotes the unstructured VC-4 of the Sth STM-1.

   Example 2: S>0, U=1, K>1, L=1, M=0
   Denotes the unstructured VC-3 of the Kth-1 TUG-3 of the Sth STM-1.

   Example 3: S>0, U=0, K=0, L=0, M=0)
   Denotes the unstructured STS-1 SPE of the Sth STS-1.

   Example 4: S>0, U=0, K=0, L>1, M=1
   Denotes the VT-6 in the Lth-1 VT Group in the Sth STS-1.

   Example 5: S>0, U=0, K=0, L>1, M=9
   Denotes the 3rd VT-1.5 in the Lth-1 VT Group in the Sth STS-1.


3.2.1.2. Port and Wavelength Labels

   Some configurations of fiber switching (FSC) and lambda switching
   (LSC) use multiple data channels/links controlled by a single control
   channel.  In such cases the label indicates the data channel/link to
   be used for the LSP.  Note that this case is not the same as when
   [MPLS-BUNDLING] is being used.










Berger, Ashwood-Smith, editors                                 [Page 16]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-01.txt November 2000


   The information carried in a Port and Wavelength label is:

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                             Label                             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Label: 32 bits

         Indicates port/fiber or lambda to be used, from the sender's
         perspective.  Values used in this field only have significance
         between two neighbors, and the receiver may need to convert the
         received value into a value that has local significance.
         Values may be configured or dynamically determined using a
         protocol such as [LMP].


3.2.1.3. Other Labels

   Generic MPLS labels and Frame Relay labels are encoded right
   justified aligned in 32 bits (4 octets).  ATM labels are encoded with
   the VPI right justified in bits 0-15 and the VCI right justified in
   bits 16-31.


3.3. Waveband Switching

   A special case of lambda switching is waveband switching.  A waveband
   represents a set of contiguous wavelengths which can be switched
   together to a new waveband.  For optimization reasons it may be
   desirable for an optical cross connect to optically switch multiple
   wavelengths as a unit.  This may reduce the distortion on the
   individual wavelengths and may allow tighter separation of the
   individual wavelengths.  The Waveband Label is defined to support
   this special case.

   Waveband switching naturally introduces another level of label
   hierarchy and as such the waveband is treated the same way all other
   upper layer labels are treated.

   As far as the MPLS protocols are concerned there is little difference
   between a waveband label and a wavelength label except that
   semantically the waveband can be subdivided into wavelengths whereas
   the wavelength can only be subdivided into time or statistically
   multiplexed labels.





Berger, Ashwood-Smith, editors                                 [Page 17]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-01.txt November 2000


3.3.1. Required information

   Waveband switching uses the same format as the generalized label, see
   section 3.2.1.

   In the context of waveband switching, the generalized label 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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                          Waveband Id                          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                          Start Label                          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                           End Label                           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Waveband Id: 32 bits

         A waveband identifier.  The value is selected by the sender and
         reused in all subsequent related messages.

      Start Label: 32 bits

         Indicates the channel identifier, from the sender's
         perspective, of the lowest value wavelength making up the
         waveband.

      End Label: 32 bits

         Indicates the channel identifier, from the sender's
         perspective, of the highest value wavelength making up the
         waveband.

   Channel identifiers are established either by configuration or by
   means of a protocol such as LMP [LMP].  They are normally used in the
   label parameter of the Generalized Label one PSC and LSC.


3.4. Suggested Label

   The Suggested Label is used to provide a downstream node with the
   upstream node's label preference.  This permits the upstream node to
   start configuring it's hardware with the proposed label before the
   label is communicated by the downstream node.  Such early
   configuration is valuable to systems that take non-trivial time to
   establish a label in hardware.  Such early configuration can reduce
   setup latency, and may be important for restoration purposes where



Berger, Ashwood-Smith, editors                                 [Page 18]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-01.txt November 2000


   alternate LSPs may need to be rapidly established as a result of
   network failures.

   The use of Suggested Label is only an optimization.  If a downstream
   node passes a different label upstream, an upstream LSR MUST
   reconfigure itself so that it uses the label specified by the
   downstream node, thereby maintaining the downstream control of a
   label.

   The information carried in a suggested label is identical to a
   generalized label.


3.5. Label Set

   The Label Set is used to limit the label choices of a downstream node
   to a set of acceptable labels.  This limitation applies on a per hop
   basis.

   There are four cases where a Label Set is useful in the optical
   domain.  The first case is where the end equipment is only capable of
   transmitting and receiving on a small specific set of
   wavelengths/bands.  The second case is where there is a sequence of
   interfaces which cannot support wavelength conversion (CI-incapable)
   and require the same wavelength be used end-to-end over a sequence of
   hops, or even an entire path.  The third case is where it is
   desirable to limit the amount of wavelength conversion being
   performed to reduce the distortion on the optical signals.  The last
   case is where two ends of a link support different sets of
   wavelengths.

   Label Set is used to restrict label ranges that may be used for a
   particular LSP between two peers.  The receiver of a Label Set must
   restrict its choice of labels to one which is in the Label Set.  Much
   like a label, a Label Set may be present across multiple hops.  In
   this case each node generates it's own outgoing Label Set, possibly
   based on the incoming Label Set and the node's hardware capabilities.
   This case is expected to be the norm for nodes with conversion
   incapable (CI-incapable) interfaces.

   The use of Label Set is optional, if not present, all labels from the
   valid label range may be used.  Conceptually the absence of a Label
   Set implies a Label Set whose value is {U}, the set of all valid
   labels.







Berger, Ashwood-Smith, editors                                 [Page 19]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-01.txt November 2000


3.5.1. Required Information

   A label set is composed of one or more Label_Set objects/TLVs.  Each
   object/TLV contains one or more elements of the Label Set.  Each
   element is referred to as a subchannel identifier and has the same
   format as a label.

   The information carried in a Label_Set is:

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |            Reserved           |  Label Type   |    Action     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                          Subchannel 1                         |
      |                              ...                              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      :                               :                               :
      :                               :                               :
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                          Subchannel N                         |
      |                              ...                              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Label Type: 8 bits

         Indicates the type and format of the labels carried in the
         object/TLV.  Values are signaling protocol specific.

      Action: 8 bits

         0 - Inclusive List

             Indicates that the object/TLV contains one or more
             subchannel elements that are included in the Label Set.

         1 - Exclusive List

             Indicates that the object/TLV contains one or more
             subchannel elements that are excluded from the Label Set.











Berger, Ashwood-Smith, editors                                 [Page 20]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-01.txt November 2000


         2 - Inclusive Range

             Indicates that the object/TLV contains a range of labels.
             The object/TLV contains two subchannel elements.  The first
             element indicates the start of the range.  The second
             element indicates the end of the range.  A value of zero
             indicates that there is no bound on the corresponding
             portion of the range.

         3 - Exclusive Range

             Indicates that the object/TLV contains a range of labels
             that are excluded from the Label Set.  The object/TLV
             contains two subchannel elements.  The first element
             indicates the start of the range.  The second element
             indicates the end of the range.  A value of zero indicates
             that there is no bound on the corresponding portion of the
             range.

      Subchannel:

         The subchannel represents the label (wavelength, fiber ... )
         which is eligible for allocation.  This field has the same
         format as described for labels under section 3.2.

         Note that subchannel to local channel identifiers (e.g.,
         wavelength) mappings are a local matter.


4. Bidirectional LSPs

   This section defines direct support of bidirectional LSPs.  Support
   is defined for LSPs that have the same traffic engineering
   requirements including fate sharing, protection and restoration,
   LSRs, and resource requirements (e.g., latency and jitter) in each
   direction.  In the remainder of this section, the term "initiator" is
   used to refer to a node that starts the establishment of an LSP and
   the term "terminator" is used to refer to the node that is the target
   of the LSP.  Note that for bidirectional LSPs, there is only one
   "initiator" and one "terminator".

   Normally to establish a bidirectional LSP when using [RSVP-TE] or
   [CR-LDP] two unidirectional paths must be independently established.
   This approach has the following disadvantages:

   * The latency to establish the bidirectional LSP is equal to one
     round trip signaling time plus one initiator-terminator signaling
     transit delay.  This not only extends the setup latency for



Berger, Ashwood-Smith, editors                                 [Page 21]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-01.txt November 2000


     successful LSP establishment, but it extends the worst-case
     latency for discovering an unsuccessful LSP to as much as two
     times the initiator-terminator transit delay.  These delays are
     particularly significant for LSPs that are established for
     restoration purposes.

   * The control overhead is twice that of a unidirectional LSP.
     This is because separate control messages (e.g. Path and Resv)
     must be generated for both segments of the bidirectional LSP.

   * Because the resources are established in separate segments,
     route selection is complicated.  There is also additional
     potential race for conditions in assignment of resources, which
     decreases the overall probability of successfully establishing
     the bidirectional connection.

   * It is more difficult to provide a clean interface for SONET
     equipment that may rely on bidirectional hop-by-hop paths for
     protection switching.  Note that existing SONET gear transmits
     the control information in-band with the data.

   * Bidirectional optical LSPs (or lightpaths) are seen as a
     requirement for many optical networking service providers.

   With bidirectional LSPs both the downstream and upstream data paths,
   i.e., from initiator to terminator and terminator to initiator, are
   established using a single set of signaling messages.  This reduces
   the setup latency to essentially one initiator-terminator round trip
   time plus processing time, and limits the control overhead to the
   same number of messages as a unidirectional LSP.


4.1. Required Information

   For bidirectional LSPs, two labels must be allocated.  Bidirectional
   LSP setup is indicated by the presence of an Upstream Label
   object/TLV in the appropriate signaling message.  An Upstream Label
   has the same format as the generalized label, see Section 3.2.


4.2. Contention Resolution

   Contention for labels may occur between two bidirectional LSP setup
   requests traveling in opposite directions.  This contention occurs
   when both sides allocate the same resources (ports) at effectively
   the same time.  If there is no restriction on the ports that can be
   used for bidirectional LSPs and if there are alternate resources,
   then both nodes will pass different labels upstream and the



Berger, Ashwood-Smith, editors                                 [Page 22]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-01.txt November 2000


   contention will be resolved naturally.  However, if there is a
   restriction on the ports that can be used for the bidirectional LSPs
   (for example, if they must be physically coupled on a single I/O
   card), or if there are no more resources available, then the
   contention must be resolved by other means.  To resolve contention,
   the node with the higher node ID will win the contention and it MUST
   issue a PathErr/NOTIFICATION message with a "Routing problem/Label
   allocation failure" indication.  Upon receipt of such an error, the
   node SHOULD try to allocate a different Upstream label (and a
   different Suggested Label if used) to the bidirectional path.
   However, if no other resources are available, the node must proceed
   with standard error handling.

   To reduce the probability of contention, one may impose a policy that
   the node with the lower ID never suggests a label in the downstream
   direction and always accepts a Suggested Label from an upstream node
   with a higher ID.  Furthermore, since the label sets are exchanged
   using LMP [LMP], an alternative local policy could further be imposed
   such that (with respect to the higher numbered node's label set) the
   higher numbered node could allocate labels from the high end of the
   label range while the lower numbered node allocates labels from the
   low end of the label range.  This mechanism would augment any close
   packing algorithms that may be used for bandwidth (or wavelength)
   optimization.  One special case that should be noted when using RSVP
   and supporting this approach is that the neighbor's node ID might not
   be known when sending an initial Path message.  When this case
   occurs, a node should suggest a label choosen at random from the
   available label space.

   An example of contention between two nodes (PXC 1 and PXC 2) is shown
   in Figure 1.  In this example PXC 1 assigns an Upstream Label for the
   channel corresponding to local BCId=2 (local BCId=7 on PXC 2) and
   sends a Suggested Label for the channel corresponding to local BCId=1
   (local BCId=6 on PXC 2).  Simultaneously, PXC 2 assigns an Upstream
   Label for the channel corresponding to its local BCId=6 (local BCId=1
   on PXC 1) and sends a Suggested Label for the channel corresponding
   to its local BCId=7 (local BCId=2 on PXC 1).  If there is no
   restriction on the ports that can be used for bidirectional LSPs and
   if there are alternate resources available, then both PXC 1 and PXC 2
   will pass different labels upstream and the contention is resolved
   naturally (see Fig. 2).  However, if there is a restriction on the
   ports that can be used for bidirectional LSPs (for example, if they
   must be physically coupled on a single I/O card), then the contention
   must be resolved using the router Id (see Fig. 3).







Berger, Ashwood-Smith, editors                                 [Page 23]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-01.txt November 2000


           +------------+                         +------------+
           +   PXC 1    +                         +   PXC 2    +
           +            +                 SL1,UL2 +            +
           +          1 +------------------------>+ 6          +
           +            + UL1, SL2                +            +
           +          2 +<------------------------+ 7          +
           +            +                         +            +
           +            +                         +            +
           +          3 +------------------------>+ 8          +
           +            +                         +            +
           +          4 +<------------------------+ 9          +
           +------------+                         +------------+
                        Figure 1.  Label Contention

   In this example, PXC 1 assigns an Upstream Label using BCId=2 (BCId=7
   on PXC 2) and a Suggested Label using BCId=1 (BCId=6 on PXC 2).
   Simultaneously, PXC 2 assigns an Upstream Label using BCId=6 (BCId=1
   on PXC 1) and a Suggested Label using BCId=7 (BCId=2 on PXC 1).

           +------------+                         +------------+
           +   PXC 1    +                         +   PXC 2    +
           +            +                     UL2 +            +
           +          1 +------------------------>+ 6          +
           +            + UL1                     +            +
           +          2 +<------------------------+ 7          +
           +            +                         +            +
           +            +                      L1 +            +
           +          3 +------------------------>+ 8          +
           +            + L2                      +            +
           +          4 +<------------------------+ 9          +
           +------------+                         +------------+
    Figure 2. Label Contention Resolution without resource restrictions

   In this example, there is no restriction on the ports that can be
   used by the bidirectional connection and contention is resolved
   naturally.















Berger, Ashwood-Smith, editors                                 [Page 24]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-01.txt November 2000


           +------------+                         +------------+
           +   PXC 1    +                         +   PXC 2    +
           +            +                     UL2 +            +
           +          1 +------------------------>+ 6          +
           +            + L2                      +            +
           +          2 +<------------------------+ 7          +
           +            +                         +            +
           +            +                      L1 +            +
           +          3 +------------------------>+ 8          +
           +            +  UL1                    +            +
           +          4 +<------------------------+ 9          +
           +------------+                         +------------+
     Figure 3. Label Contention Resolution with resource restrictions

   In this example, ports 1,2 and 3,4 on PXC 1 (ports 6,7 and 8,9 on PXC
   2, respectively) must be used by the same bidirectional connection.
   Since PXC 2 has a higher node ID, it wins the contention and PXC 1
   must use a different set of labels.


5. Explicit Label Control

   The LSR at the initiator of an LSP can control nodes used by an LSP
   and the termination of the LSP by using an explicit route, i.e., ERO
   or ER-Hop.  To require the usage of a particular node, that node is
   included in the explicit route.  To terminate an LSP on a particular
   outgoing interface of the egress LSR, the head-end may specify the IP
   address or the interface identifier [MPLS-UNNUM] of that interface as
   the last element in the explicit route, provided that that interface
   has an associated IP address.

   There are cases where the existing explicit route semantics do not
   provide enough information to control the LSP to the degree desired.
   This occurs in the case when the LSP initiator wishes to select a
   label used on a link.  An example of this is when it is desirable to
   "splice" two LSPs together, i.e., where the tail of the first LSP
   would be "spliced" into the head of the second LSP.  This last case
   is more likely to be used in the non-PSC classes of links.

   To to cover this case, the Label ERO subobject / ER Hop is
   introduced.










Berger, Ashwood-Smith, editors                                 [Page 25]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-01.txt November 2000


5.1. Required Information

   The Label Explicit Route contains:

      L: 1 bit

         This bit must be set to 0.

      U: 1 bit

         This bit indicates the direction of the label.  It is 0 for the
         downstream label.  It is set to 1 for the upstream label and is
         only used on bidirectional LSPs.

      Label: Variable

         This field identifies the label to be used.  The format of this
         field is identical to the one used by the Label field in
         Generalized Label, see Section 3.2.1.


   Placement and ordering of these parameters are signaling protocol
   specific.


6. Acknowledgments

   This draft is the work of numerous authors and consists of a
   composition of a number of previous drafts in this area.  A list of
   the drafts from which material and ideas were incorporated follows:

   draft-saha-rsvp-optical-signaling-00.txt
   draft-lang-mpls-rsvp-oxc-00.txt
   draft-kompella-mpls-optical-00.txt
   draft-fan-mpls-lambda-signaling-00.txt

   Valuable comments and input were received from a number of people,
   including Igor Bryskin and Adrian Farrel.













Berger, Ashwood-Smith, editors                                 [Page 26]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-01.txt November 2000


7. Security Considerations

   This draft introduce no new security considerations to either [CR-
   LDP] or [RSVP-TE].


8. References

[CR-LDP] Jamoussi et al., "Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP",
         draft-ietf-mpls-cr-ldp-04.txt, July, 2000.

[LDP] Andersson et al., "LDP Specification",
      draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-11.txt, August 2000.

[LMP] Lang, J.P., Mitra, K., Drake, J., Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y.,
      Saha, D., Berger, L., Basak, D., "Link Management Protocol",
      Internet Draft, draft-lang-mpls-lmp-01.txt, July 2000.

[MPLS-ARCH] Rosen et al., "Multiprotocol label switching
            Architecture", Internet Draft,
            draft-ietf-mpls-arch-06.txt, August 1999.

[MPLS-BUNDLE] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., and Berger, L., "Link Bundling
              in MPLS Traffic Engineering", Internet Draft,
              draft-kompella-mpls-bundle-02.txt, July 2000.

[MPLS-HIERARCHY] Kompella, K., and Rekhter, Y., "LSP Hierarchy with
                 MPLS TE", Internet Draft,
                 draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-00.txt, July 2000.

[GMPLS-ISIS] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., Banerjee, A., Drake, J.,
             Bernstein, G., Fedyk, D., Mannie, E., Saha, D., and
             Sharma, V., "IS-IS Extensions in Support of Generalized
             MPLS", Internet Draft,
             draft-ietf-isis-gmpls-extensions-00.txt, July 2000.
[GMPLS-LDP] Ashwood-Smith, P. et al, "Generalized MPLS Signaling -
            CR-LDP Extensions", Internet Draft,
            draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-00.txt,
            November 2000.

[GMPLS-OSPF] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., Banerjee, A., Drake, J.,
             Bernstein, G., Fedyk, D., Mannie, E., Saha, D., and
             Sharma, V., "OSPF Extensions in Support of MPLambdaS",
             Internet Draft, draft-ompls-ospf-extensions-00.txt,
             July 2000.






Berger, Ashwood-Smith, editors                                 [Page 27]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-01.txt November 2000


[GMPLS-RSVP] Ashwood-Smith, P. et al, "Generalized MPLS Signaling -
             RSVP-TE Extensions", Internet Draft,
             draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-00.txt,
             November 2000.

[RSVP-TE] Awduche, D.O., Berger, L., Gan, D.-H., Li, T., Swallow, G.,
          and Srinivasan, V., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
          Tunnels,"  Internet Draft,
          draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-tunnel-06.txt, July 2000.

[RECOVERY] Makam, et al "A Framework for MPLS-based Recovery,"
           draft-ieft-mpls-recovery-frmwrk-00.txt, August 2000.


9. Authors' Addresses

   Peter Ashwood-Smith
   Nortel Networks Corp.
   P.O. Box 3511 Station C,
   Ottawa, ON K1Y 4H7
   Canada
   Phone:  +1 613 763 4534
   Email:  petera@nortelnetworks.com

   Ayan Banerjee
   Calient Networks
   5853 Rue Ferrari
   San Jose, CA 95138
   Phone:  +1 408 972-3645
   Email:  abanerjee@calient.net

   Lou Berger
   Movaz Networks
   Phone:  +1 301 468 9228
   Email:  lberger@movaz.com

   Greg Bernstein
   Ciena Corporation
   10480 Ridgeview Court
   Cupertino, CA 94014
   Phone:  +1 408 366 4713
   Email:  greg@ciena.com









Berger, Ashwood-Smith, editors                                 [Page 28]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-01.txt November 2000


   John Drake
   Calient Networks
   5853 Rue Ferrari
   San Jose, CA 95138
   Phone:  +1 408 972 3720
   Email:  jdrake@calient.net

   Yanhe Fan
   Axiowave Networks, Inc.
   100 Nickerson Road
   Marlborough, MA 01752
   Phone:  +1 508 460 6969 Ext. 627
   Email:  yfan@axiowave.com

   Kireeti Kompella
   Juniper Networks, Inc.
   1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
   Sunnyvale, CA 94089
   Email:  kireeti@juniper.net

   Jonathan P. Lang
   Calient Networks
   25 Castilian
   Goleta, CA 93117
   Email:  jplang@calient.net

   Eric Mannie
   GTS
   Terhulpsesteenweg 6A
   1560 Hoeilaart - Belgium
   Phone:  +32 2 658 56 52
   Mobile: +32 496 58 56 52
   Fax:    +32 2 658 51 18
   Email:  eric.mannie@gts.com

   Bala Rajagopalan
   Tellium, Inc.
   2 Crescent Place
   P.O. Box 901
   Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901
   Phone:  +1 732 923 4237
   Fax:    +1 732 923 9804
   Email:  braja@tellium.com

   Yakov Rekhter
   cisco Systems
   Email:  yakov@cisco.com




Berger, Ashwood-Smith, editors                                 [Page 29]


Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-01.txt November 2000


   Debanjan Saha
   Tellium Optical Systems
   2 Crescent Place
   Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901
   Phone:  +1 732 923 4264
   Fax:    +1 732 923 9804
   Email:  dsaha@tellium.com

   Vishal Sharma
   Tellabs Research Center
   One Kendall Square
   Bldg. 100, Ste. 121
   Cambridge, MA 02139-1562
   Phone:  +1 617 577 8760
   Email:  Vishal.Sharma@tellabs.com

   George Swallow
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   250 Apollo Drive
   Chelmsford, MA 01824
   Voice:  +1 978 244 8143
   Email:  swallow@cisco.com

   Z. Bo Tang
   Tellium, Inc.
   2 Crescent Place
   P.O. Box 901
   Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901
   Phone:  +1 732 923 4231
   Fax:    +1 732 923 9804
   Email:  btang@tellium.com




















Berger, Ashwood-Smith, editors                                 [Page 30]

Generated on: Fri Nov 17 11:56:41 EST 2000


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