draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-06.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-07.txt 
Network Working Group D. Li Network Working Group D. Li
Internet Draft H. Xu Internet Draft H. Xu
Category: Standards Track Huawei Category: Standards Track Huawei
S. Bardalai S. Bardalai
Fujitsu Fujitsu
J. Meuric J. Meuric
France Telecom France Telecom
D. Caviglia D. Caviglia
Ericsson Ericsson
Expires: February 2010 August 14, 2009 Expires: March 2010 September 3, 2009
Data Channel Status Confirmation Extensions Data Channel Status Confirmation Extensions
for the Link Management Protocol for the Link Management Protocol
draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-06.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-07.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. other groups may also distribute working documents as
Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
skipping to change at page 7, line 21 skipping to change at page 7, line 21
Outline procedures are described in this section. More detailed Outline procedures are described in this section. More detailed
procedures are found in Section 5. procedures are found in Section 5.
4.1. Confirm Data Channel Status Messages 4.1. Confirm Data Channel Status Messages
Extensions to LMP to confirm a data channel status are described Extensions to LMP to confirm a data channel status are described
below. In order to confirm a data channel status, the new LMP below. In order to confirm a data channel status, the new LMP
messages are sent between adjacent nodes periodically or driven by messages are sent between adjacent nodes periodically or driven by
some event (such as an operator command, a configurable timer, or the some event (such as an operator command, a configurable timer, or the
rejection of an LSP setup message because of an unavailable resource). rejection of an LSP setup message because of an unavailable
The new LMP messages run over the control channel, encapsulated in resource). The new LMP messages run over the control channel,
UDP with an LMP port number and IP addressing as defined in Link encapsulated in UDP with an LMP port number and IP addressing as
Management Protocol (LMP) [RFC4204]. defined in Link Management Protocol (LMP) [RFC4204].
Three new messages are defined to check data channel status. Message Three new messages are defined to check data channel status. Message
Type numbers are found in Section 7.1. Type numbers are found in Section 7.1.
If the message is a Confirm Data Channel Status message, and the If the message is a Confirm Data Channel Status message, and the
Message_Id value is less than the largest Message_Id value previously Message_Id value is less than the largest Message_Id value previously
received from the sender for the specified TE link, then the message received from the sender for the specified TE link, then the message
SHOULD be treated as being out-of-order. SHOULD be treated as being out-of-order.
4.1.1. ConfirmDataChannelStatus Messages 4.1.1. ConfirmDataChannelStatus Messages
skipping to change at page 9, line 43 skipping to change at page 9, line 43
This is a series of bit flags to indicate the status of the data This is a series of bit flags to indicate the status of the data
channel. The following values are defined. channel. The following values are defined.
0x0000 : The channel is available/free. 0x0000 : The channel is available/free.
0x0001 : The channel is unavailable/in-use. 0x0001 : The channel is unavailable/in-use.
Data Channel ID Data Channel ID
This identifies the data channel. The length of this field can be This identifies the data channel. The length of this field can be
deduced from the Length field in the subobject. Note that all deduced from the Length field in the subobject. Note that all
subobjects must be padded to a four byte boundary with trailing zeros. subobjects must be padded to a four byte boundary with trailing
If such padding is required, the Length field MUST indicate the zeros. If such padding is required, the Length field MUST indicate
length of the subobject up to, but not including, the first byte of the length of the subobject up to, but not including, the first byte
padding. Thus, the amount of padding is deduced and not represented of padding. Thus, the amount of padding is deduced and not
in the Length field. represented in the Length field.
Note that the Data Channel ID is given in the context of the sender Note that the Data Channel ID is given in the context of the sender
of the ConfirmChannelStatus message. of the ConfirmChannelStatus message.
The data-channel ID must be encoded as a label value. Based on the The data-channel ID must be encoded as a label value. Based on the
type of signal e.g. SONET/SDH, Lambda etc. the encoding methodology type of signal e.g. SONET/SDH, Lambda etc. the encoding methodology
used will be different. For SONET/SDH the label value is encoded as used will be different. For SONET/SDH the label value is encoded as
per RFC4606. per RFC4606.
4.3. Message Construction 4.3. Message Construction
skipping to change at page 10, line 26 skipping to change at page 10, line 26
The status of the TE link end MUST be carried by the Data Channel The status of the TE link end MUST be carried by the Data Channel
Status subobject which is defined in section 4.2 of this document. Status subobject which is defined in section 4.2 of this document.
The new subobject MUST be part of Data_Link Class. The new subobject MUST be part of Data_Link Class.
In the case of SDH/SONET, DATA Channel ID in the new subobject SHOULD In the case of SDH/SONET, DATA Channel ID in the new subobject SHOULD
be used to identify each timeslot of the data link. be used to identify each timeslot of the data link.
4.4. Backward Compatibility 4.4. Backward Compatibility
Some nodes running in the network may only support the LMP Message Some nodes running in the network may only support the LMP Message
Type from 1 to 20, which are already defined in [RFC4204]. The three Types, which are already defined in [RFC4204]. The three new types of
new types of LMP message (Message Type from 21 to 23) defined in this LMP message defined in this document can not be recognized by these
document can not be recognized by these nodes. The unknown message nodes. The unknown message behavior is not being specified in
behavior is not being specified in [RFC4204], it's suggested to [RFC4204], it's suggested to discard the unknown message silently.
discard the unknown message silently. This document's defined This document's defined mechanisms presume a certain non-standard
mechanisms presume a certain non-standard behavior of existing/non- behavior of existing/non-document supporting nodes. To use this
document supporting nodes. To use this mechanisms all nodes MUST have mechanisms all nodes MUST have the extensions described in this
the extensions described in this document for compatibility. document for compatibility.
5. Procedures 5. Procedures
The data channel status confirmation related LMP messages MAY be sent The data channel status confirmation related LMP messages MAY be sent
between adjacent nodes which are triggered by timer periodically or between adjacent nodes which are triggered by timer periodically or
driven by some events to confirm the channel status for the data driven by some events to confirm the channel status for the data
links. It's a local police decision to start the data channel status links. It's a local police decision to start the data channel status
confirmation process. The procedure is described below: confirmation process. The procedure is described below:
. The SENDER constructs a ConfirmDataChannelStatus message which . The SENDER constructs a ConfirmDataChannelStatus message which
skipping to change at page 15, line 17 skipping to change at page 15, line 17
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. and restrictions with respect to this document.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10, Contributions published or made publicly available before November
2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English. than English.
12. Intellectual Property Statement 12. Intellectual Property Statement
 End of changes. 7 change blocks. 
22 lines changed or deleted 23 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.35. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/