draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-gmpls-provider-reqs-01.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-gmpls-provider-reqs-02.txt 
Network Working Group W. Imajuku, Ed., NTT Network Working Group W. Imajuku, Ed.
Internet-Draft Otani, Ed., KDDI Internet-Draft NTT Com
Intended status: Informational N. Bitar, Ed., Verizon Intended status: Informational T. Otani, Ed.
Expires: June 13, 2009 Expires: December 14, 2009 KDDI
December 10, 2008 N. Bitar, Ed.
Verizon
June 12, 2009
Service Provider Requirements for Ethernet control with GMPLS Service Provider Requirements for Ethernet control with GMPLS
draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-gmpls-provider-reqs-01.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-gmpls-provider-reqs-02.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 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- other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts. 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
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 13, 2009. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 14, 2009.
Abstract Abstract
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) is applicable to Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) is applicable to
Ethernet switches supporting Provider Backbone Bridge Traffic Ethernet switches supporting Provider Backbone Bridge Traffic
Engineering (PBB-TE) networks. The GMPLS controlled Ethernet label Engineering (PBB-TE) networks. The GMPLS controlled Ethernet label
switch network not only automates creation of Ethernet Label Switched switch network not only automates creation of Ethernet Label Switched
Paths(Eth-LSPs), it also provides sophisticated Eth-LSP recovery Paths(Eth-LSPs), it also provides sophisticated Eth-LSP recovery
Mechanisms such as protection and restoration of an Eth-LSP. This Mechanisms such as protection and restoration of an Eth-LSP. This
document describes the requirements for the set of solutions of GMPLS document describes the requirements for the set of solutions of GMPLS
skipping to change at page 2, line 34 skipping to change at page 2, line 34
4.1. Control plane architecture and functionality . . . . . . . 7 4.1. Control plane architecture and functionality . . . . . . . 7
4.1.1. In-band control channel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1.1. In-band control channel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1.2. Neighbor discovery mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1.2. Neighbor discovery mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1.3. Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1.3. Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Ethernet LSP control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.2. Ethernet LSP control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2.1. Prevention of Loops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.2.1. Prevention of Loops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2.2. Service control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.2.2. Service control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2.3. P2MP and MP2MP requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.2.3. P2MP and MP2MP requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2.4. Asymmetric bandwidth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.2.4. Asymmetric bandwidth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2.5. QoS control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.2.5. QoS control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. OA&M related functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.3. OA&M related functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.4. Protection and Restoration related functionality . . . . . 8 4.4. Protection and Restoration related functionality . . . . . 9
4.5. Link Aggregation Group (LAG) related functionality . . . . 9 4.5. Link Aggregation Group (LAG) related functionality . . . . 9
4.5.1. Failure or deletion of LAG member link . . . . . . . . 9 4.5.1. Failure or deletion of LAG member link . . . . . . . . 9
4.5.2. Recovery or addition of LAG member link . . . . . . . 9 4.5.2. Recovery or addition of LAG member link . . . . . . . 9
4.6. Inter-domain Ethernet LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.6. Inter-domain Ethernet LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.7. Multi-layer network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.7. Multi-layer network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.7.1. Dynamic formation of LAG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.7.1. Dynamic formation of LAG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.7.2. Other requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.7.2. Other requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.8. Scalability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.8. Scalability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 19 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 19
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
skipping to change at page 3, line 19 skipping to change at page 3, line 19
supporting Provider Bridging (PB) [IEEE802.1ad] has became one of the supporting Provider Bridging (PB) [IEEE802.1ad] has became one of the
solutions for service providers to provide enterprise WAN/LAN solutions for service providers to provide enterprise WAN/LAN
services. IEEE standardization activities of Provider Backbone services. IEEE standardization activities of Provider Backbone
Bridge(PBB) [IEEE802.1ah] and PBB for Traffic Engineering (PBB-TE) Bridge(PBB) [IEEE802.1ah] and PBB for Traffic Engineering (PBB-TE)
[IEEE802.1Qay] provide an opportunity not only for enhancing the [IEEE802.1Qay] provide an opportunity not only for enhancing the
scalability, manageability, and controllability of the Ethernet scalability, manageability, and controllability of the Ethernet
service networks, but also for more efficiently deploying access/ service networks, but also for more efficiently deploying access/
metro access networks. metro access networks.
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) provides the Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) provides the
framework for handling and controlling various types of switching framework for handling and controlling various types of connection-
technologies, namely packet switching with various label formats TDM oriented switching technologies, namely packet switching with various
switching, and wavelength switching [RFC3945]. Therefore, the label formats TDM switching, and wavelength switching [RFC3945].
combined use of GMPLS and PBB-TE is a fairly suitable "use case" that Therefore, the combined use of GMPLS and PBB-TE is a fairly suitable
contributes to enhancing the flexibility of Ethernet Label Switched "use case" that contributes to enhancing the flexibility of Ethernet
Path (Eth-LSP) over Ethernet switch networks without defining Label Switched Path (Eth-LSP) over Ethernet switch networks without
additional connection layers. defining additional connection layers.
This document describes requirements for GMPLS protocols to control This document describes requirements for GMPLS protocols to control
Ethernet label switch networks and comprises mainly two parts. The Ethernet label switch networks and comprises mainly two parts. The
first one is the requirements for GMPLS extension for controlling first one is the requirements for GMPLS extension for controlling
Ethernet layer. The second one includes the requirements for GMPLS Ethernet layer. The second one includes the requirements for GMPLS
extensions to support multi-layer operation. Although a large extensions to support multi-layer operation. Although a large
portion of requirements in the second scope coincides with the portion of requirements in the second scope coincides with the
description in [RFC5145] and [RFC5146], some of important description in [RFC5145] and [RFC5146], some of important
requirements are also described in this document. requirements are also described in this document.
skipping to change at page 5, line 12 skipping to change at page 5, line 12
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
3. Reference model 3. Reference model
3.1. Single Layer 3.1. Single Layer
This document describes requirements based on the reference model This document describes requirements based on the reference model
depicted in Fig.1. The first reference model is an intra-domain and depicted in Fig.1. The first reference model is an intra-domain and
single layer GMPLS controlled Ethernet label switching network in single layer GMPLS controlled Ethernet label switching network in
which Eth-LSPs traverse over between Back Bone Core Bridges (BCBs) or which Eth-LSPs traverse over between Backbone Core Bridges (BCBs) or
Back Bone Edge Bridges (BEBs). Backbone Edge Bridges (BEBs).
-------- ----- --------
P-based IF --| LSR1 |____|LSR2 |_____| LSR3 |-- P-based IF
S-tagged IF --|(IB-BEB)| |(BCB)| |(IB-BEB)|-- S-tagged IF
I-tagged IF --| | | | | |-- I-tagged IF
-------- ----- --------
--------
| LSR3 |__ P-based IF
-------- ----- _____|(IB-BEB)|__ S-tagged IF
P-based IF | LSR1 |____|LSR2 | | |__ I-tagged IF
S-tagged IF |(IB-BEB)| |(BCB)| --------
I-tagged IF | | | |_____ --------
-------- ----- | LSR4 |
| (B-BEB)|
| |__ I-tagged IF
--------
| GMPLS Eth-LSP | | GMPLS Eth-LSP |
| (BVID/BMAC) | | (BVID/BMAC) |
|<---------------| |<-------------->|
Figure 1 Single layer GMPLS controlled PBB-TE network Figure 1 Single layer GMPLS controlled PBB-TE network
The BEBs provide mainly three types of service interfaces, namely The BEBs provide mainly three types of service interfaces, namely
Port based service interface (P-based IF), S-tagged service interface Port based service interface (P-based IF), S-tagged service interface
(S-tagged IF), and I-tagged service Interface (I-tagged IF) (S-tagged IF), and I-tagged service Interface (I-tagged IF)
[IEEE802.1ah]. The "P-based IF" and "S-tagged IF" are connected to [IEEE802.1ah]. The "P-based IF" and "S-tagged IF" are connected to
the I-component of a BEB (I-BEB), while the I-tagged IF is connected the I-component of a BEB (I-BEB), while the I-tagged IF is connected
to the B-component of a BEB (B-BEB). "S-tagged IF" can perform to the B-component of a BEB (B-BEB). "S-tagged IF" can perform
various types of mapping between Service VLAN ID (S-VID) and Backbone various types of mapping between Service VLAN ID (S-VID) and Backbone
skipping to change at page 6, line 12 skipping to change at page 6, line 8
Also, it is technically possible to form multiple layer Ethernet Also, it is technically possible to form multiple layer Ethernet
switch networks. Namely, the reference model is defined as the case switch networks. Namely, the reference model is defined as the case
that Ethernet switch network substitutes L1 network in Fig.2, and that Ethernet switch network substitutes L1 network in Fig.2, and
realizes MAC in MAC Ethernet transport. The routing information of realizes MAC in MAC Ethernet transport. The routing information of
optical layer may be isolated (overlay model), shuffled (peer model), optical layer may be isolated (overlay model), shuffled (peer model),
or virtualized with FA-LSPs (augmented model) for Ethernet switch or virtualized with FA-LSPs (augmented model) for Ethernet switch
layer. layer.
-------- ------ -------- -------- ------ --------
P-based IF __| LSR1 | | LSR2 | | LSR3 |__ P-based IF P-based IF --| LSR1 | | LSR2 | | LSR3 |-- P-based IF
S-tagged IF __|(IB-BEB)| | (BCB)| |(IB-BEB)|__ S-tagged IF S-tagged IF --|(IB-BEB)| | (BCB)| |(IB-BEB)|-- S-tagged IF
I-tagged IF __| | | | | |__ I-tagged IF I-tagged IF --| | | | | |-- I-tagged IF
-------- ------ -------- -------- ------ --------
| | ||LAG LAG|| | | ||LAG LAG||
..................|...........|..||..........||................... ..................|...........|..||..........||...................
| | || || | | || ||
---+---- ------ ------ ---+---- ------ ------
| LSR A |_____|LSR B |_____|LSR C | | LSR A |_____|LSR B |_____|LSR C |
| (LSC) | |(LSC) | WDM |(LSC) | | (LSC) | |(LSC) | WDM |(LSC) |
-------- ------ ------ -------- ------ ------
| GMPLS Eth-LSP (BVID/BMAC)| | GMPLS Eth-LSP (BVID/BMAC)|
|<------------------------>| |<------------------------>|
| O-LSP | | O-LSP | | O-LSP | | O-LSP |
|<--------->| |<-------->| |<--------->| |<-------->|
Figure 2 Multi-layer GMPLS controlled Ethernet label switched network Figure 2 Multi-layer GMPLS controlled Ethernet label switched network
4. Requirements 4. Requirements
Section 4.1 to 4.6 describe requirements for single layer Ethernet
label swicth network based on the reference model from Fig.1. In
addition, section 4.7 describes requirements for multiple layer
network with Ethernet layer and circuit switch layer (such as
wavelength switched layer and so on). Finally, section 4.8 describes
generic requirements applicable to single and multiple layer
networks.
4.1. Control plane architecture and functionality 4.1. Control plane architecture and functionality
4.1.1. In-band control channel 4.1.1. In-band control channel
The solution should be able to establish in-band control channel, The solution should be able to establish in-band control channel,
while preserving the solution of out-band control channel. The while preserving the solution of out-band control channel. The
solution should include negotiation mechanism to specify bandwidth solution should include negotiation mechanism to specify bandwidth
and priority of control-channel between peer Ethernet switches. and priority of control-channel between peer Ethernet switches.
4.1.2. Neighbor discovery mechanism 4.1.2. Neighbor discovery mechanism
The solution MUST be able to realize automatic neighbor discover as The solution MUST be able to realize automatic neighbor discovery as
realized in current PB or PBB networks. Namely, the solution MUST realized in current PB or PBB networks. Namely, the solution MUST
support an automatic negotiation mechanism to exchange information of support an automatic negotiation mechanism to exchange information of
Node ID, TE-Link ID, Data-link ID (in the case of link Bundling), and Node ID, TE-Link ID, Data-link ID (in the case of link Bundling), and
IP address of the control channel. On the other hand, the extension IP address of the control channel for these configuration between
should be minimized by making use of [IEEE802.1AB]. neighbors. On the other hand, the extension should be minimized by
making use of [RFC4394] and [IEEE802.1AB].
4.1.3. Addressing 4.1.3. Addressing
TBD All service interfaces, TE-Link IDs and Data-link IDs MUST be able to
be indicated by standard IEEE MAC address format, but Node ID should
be with IP addresses.
4.2. Ethernet LSP control 4.2. Ethernet LSP control
4.2.1. Prevention of Loops 4.2.1. Prevention of Loops
The solution should have reliability to prevent creating loops of The solution should have reliability to prevent creating loops of
Eth-LSPs. Specifically if the solution supports numbered TE-Link Eth-LSPs. Specifically if the solution supports numbered TE-Link
addressing, the solution should define a methodology and protocol addressing, the solution should define a methodology and protocol
extensions if needed to detect or prevent loops. extensions if needed to detect or prevent loops.
skipping to change at page 7, line 42 skipping to change at page 8, line 4
The solution should have reliability to prevent creating loops of The solution should have reliability to prevent creating loops of
Eth-LSPs. Specifically if the solution supports numbered TE-Link Eth-LSPs. Specifically if the solution supports numbered TE-Link
addressing, the solution should define a methodology and protocol addressing, the solution should define a methodology and protocol
extensions if needed to detect or prevent loops. extensions if needed to detect or prevent loops.
4.2.2. Service control 4.2.2. Service control
The solution should control various types of service interfaces The solution should control various types of service interfaces
defined in [IEEE802.1ah]. The service types of Egress port defined in [IEEE802.1ah]. The service types of Egress port
1) Port based service interface 1) Port based service interface
2) S-tagged service interface 2) S-tagged service interface
a) one-to-one mapping of S-VIDs to I-SIDs a) one-to-one mapping of S-VIDs to I-SIDs
b) bundled mapping of S-VIDs to I-SIDs such as many-to-one, all-to- b) bundled mapping of S-VIDs to I-SIDs such as many-to-one, all-to-
one, transparent mapping one, transparent mapping
3) I-tagged service interface should be controllable in addition to
assignment of Egress port itself.
Also, the solution should be flexible to following operational Also, the solution should be flexible to following operational
scenarios, scenarios,
1) Any change of mapping of S-VIDs to I-SIDs 1) Any change of mapping of S-VIDs to I-SIDs
2) Flexibility to nest or stitch higher layer Eth-LSPs. 2) Flexibility to nest or stitch higher layer Eth-LSPs.
3) Any change of bandwidth of Eth-LSPs. Here, the solution of 3) Any change of bandwidth of Eth-LSPs. Here, the solution of
bandwidth modification scenario may include bundling of multiple Eth- bandwidth modification scenario may include bundling of multiple Eth-
LSPs. LSPs.
4.2.3. P2MP and MP2MP requirements 4.2.3. P2MP and MP2MP requirements
To provide the service such as a content distribution, the creation To provide the service such as a content distribution, the creation
of uni-directional P2MP Eth-LSPs should be supported. Also, to of uni-directional P2MP Eth-LSPs should be supported. Also, to
provide E-tree type services with multicast traffic, the creation of provide E-tree type services with multicast traffic, the creation of
bi-directional P2MP/MP2P Eth-LSPs should be supported. The MP2MP bi-directional P2MP Eth-LSPs should be supported. The MP2MP
requirement is under discussion. requirement is for further study.
4.2.4. Asymmetric bandwidth 4.2.4. Asymmetric bandwidth
To provide the service which has asymmetric traffic pattern such as a To provide the service which has asymmetric traffic pattern such as a
kind of E-tree type services, the creation of asymmetric bandwidth kind of E-tree type services, the creation of asymmetric bandwidth
bi-directional Eth-LSPs should be supported. The bandwidth bi-directional Eth-LSPs should be supported. The bandwidth
modification of Eth-LSPs in operation should be also supported. modification of Eth-LSPs in operation should be also supported.
4.2.5. QoS control 4.2.5. QoS control
skipping to change at page 9, line 8 skipping to change at page 9, line 23
[IEEE802.1ag]. [IEEE802.1ag].
4.4. Protection and Restoration related functionality 4.4. Protection and Restoration related functionality
1:1 protection, Shared protection and dynamic restoration should be 1:1 protection, Shared protection and dynamic restoration should be
supported. Protection and Restoration may be triggered by Ethernet supported. Protection and Restoration may be triggered by Ethernet
OA&M function such as CC, AIS and RDI [IEEE802.1ag] , [Y.1731]. OA&M function such as CC, AIS and RDI [IEEE802.1ag] , [Y.1731].
4.5. Link Aggregation Group (LAG) related functionality 4.5. Link Aggregation Group (LAG) related functionality
Link Aggregation is beneficial functionality to realize reliable Link Aggregation is beneficial functionality to realize flexible
Ethernet label switched networks. The availability of connection reconfiguration of logical link bandwidth and reliable Ethernet label
between peer Ethernet switches can be enhanced in the case of single switched networks. The availability of link bandwidth between peer
link failure, if member links of the LAG are diversely routed. In Ethernet switches can be enhanced.
this operational scenario, LAG provides for link protection
functionality.
The solution should include methodology to explicitly assign the The solution should support Link Bundling mechanism described in
links forming LAG a desired link type (which is similar sense to [RFC4201] to explicitly assign the links forming LAG.
assign link protection type described in [RFC3471]).
4.5.1. Failure or deletion of LAG member link 4.5.1. Failure or deletion of LAG member link
The solution should include functionality to prioritize Eth-LSPs, The solution should include functionality to prioritize Eth-LSPs,
specifically when total bandwidth of Eth-LSPs exceeds total bandwidth specifically when total bandwidth of Eth-LSPs exceeds total bandwidth
of healthy LAG members after the failure of one or more LAG member of healthy LAG members after the failure of one or more LAG member
links. links.
The solution should provide for rerouting an Eth-LSP setup over a The solution should provide for rerouting an Eth-LSP setup over a
failed member link in a LAG to another member link in the LAG. failed member link in a LAG to another member link in the LAG.
skipping to change at page 10, line 11 skipping to change at page 10, line 18
2) S-tagged service interfaces, and 2) S-tagged service interfaces, and
3) C-tagged service interfaces. 3) C-tagged service interfaces.
4.7. Multi-layer network 4.7. Multi-layer network
4.7.1. Dynamic formation of LAG 4.7.1. Dynamic formation of LAG
The solution should include dynamic formation of a LAG after the The solution should include dynamic formation of a LAG after the
creation or deletion of optical LSPs which interconnect ports of creation or deletion of optical LSPs which interconnect ports of
Ethernet switches. Ethernet switches. It should use the existing Link Bundling
mechanism to assign bandwidth to dynamically formulated LAG.
4.7.2. Other requirements 4.7.2. Other requirements
The architecture and requirements for MPLS-GMPLS inter-working are The architecture and requirements for MPLS-GMPLS inter-working are
described in [RFC5145] and [RFC5146]. Some of the requirements described in [RFC5145] and [RFC5146]. Some of the requirements
described in [RFC5146] are valid even for the case of GMPLS-GMPLS described in [RFC5146] are valid even for the case of GMPLS-GMPLS
interworking between Ethernet label switched network and L1 network. interworking between Ethernet label switched network and L1 network.
In other words, In other words,
1) End-to-End signaling of Eth-LSPs 1) End-to-End signaling of Eth-LSPs
2) Triggered establishment of L1 LSPs 2) Triggered establishment of L1 LSPs
3) Avoiding complexity and risks. 3) Avoiding complexity and risks.
should be satisfied even for GMPLS control plane for Ethernet. For should be satisfied even for GMPLS control plane for Ethernet. For
more details, see [Interwk-req] and MPLS-TE client network written in more details, see [RFC5146] and MPLS-TE client network written in the
the document should be understood as Ethernet client network. document should be understood as Ethernet client network.
Regarding to routing issue, Regarding to routing issue,
1) Advertisement of Ethernet label switch network information via L1 1) Advertisement of Ethernet label switch network information via L1
GMPLS networks GMPLS networks
2) Selective Advertisement of Ethernet label switched network 2) Selective Advertisement of Ethernet label switched network
information via a Border node information via a Border node
should be satisfied even in the case of GMPLS-GMPLS inter-working. should be satisfied even in the case of GMPLS-GMPLS inter-working.
skipping to change at page 11, line 4 skipping to change at page 11, line 13
control channel. control channel.
4.8. Scalability 4.8. Scalability
The solution MUST be designed to scale according to following The solution MUST be designed to scale according to following
metrics. metrics.
- Number of nodes - Number of nodes
- Number of TE-Links - Number of TE-Links
- Number of LSPs - Number of LSPs
- Number of service ports - Number of service ports
- Number of bundled S-VLANs mapped to I-SID and Eth-LSPs. - Number of bundled S-VLANs mapped to I-SID and Eth-LSPs
- Number of advertised VLANs
- Number of MEPs and MIPs.
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
The extension for GMPLS controlled Ethernet label switching should be The extension for GMPLS controlled Ethernet label switching should be
considered under the same security as current work. This extension considered under the same security as current work. This extension
will not change the underlying security issues. will not change the underlying security issues.
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA. This document has no actions for IANA.
7. Acknowledgements 7. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Mr. Allan McGuire, Mr. Jullien The authors would like to thank Mr. Allan McGuire, Mr. Jullien
Meuric, Mr. Lou Berger and Mr. Don Fedyk for their valuable comments. Meuric, Mr. Lou Berger, Mr. Don Fedyk and Mr. Attila Takacs for their
valuable comments.
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[IEEE802.1AB] [IEEE802.1AB]
IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks,
Station and Media Access Control Connectivity Station and Media Access Control Connectivity Discovery".
Discovery
[IEEE802.1Qay] [IEEE802.1Qay]
"IEEE standard for Provider Backbone Bridges Traffic "IEEE standard for Provider Backbone Bridges Traffic
Engineering", work in progress. Engineering", work in progress.".
[IEEE802.1ad] [IEEE802.1ad]
IEEE Computer Society, "Virtual Bridged Local Area "IEEE Computer Society, "Virtual Bridged Local Area
Networks - Amendment 4 : Provider Bridges", P802.1ad/D6.0, Networks - Amendment 4 : Provider Bridges", P802.1ad/D6.0,
Draft, Work in Progress. Draft, Work in Progress".
[IEEE802.1ag] [IEEE802.1ag]
IEEE Computer Society, "Virtual Bridged Local Area "IEEE Computer Society, "Virtual Bridged Local Area
Networks - Amendment 5 : Connectivity Fault Management", Networks - Amendment 5 : Connectivity Fault Management",
P802.1ag/D5.2, Draft, Work in Progress. P802.1ag/D5.2, Draft, Work in Progress".
[IEEE802.1ah] [IEEE802.1ah]
"IEEE standard for Provider Backbone Bridges", work in "IEEE standard for Provider Backbone Bridges", work in
progress. progress.".
[IEEE802.3] [IEEE802.3]
IEEE Computer Society, "Amendment to Carrier Sense "IEEE Computer Society, "Amendment to Carrier Sense
Multiple Access with Collision Detection (CAMS/CD) Access Multiple Access with Collision Detection (CAMS/CD) Access
Method and Physical Layer Specifications. Method and Physical Layer Specifications".
[MEF10.1] MEF, "Ethernet Services Attributes Phase2(MEF10.1)," http [MEF10.1] "MEF, "Ethernet Services Attributes Phase2(MEF10.1)," http
://www.metroethernetforum.org/PDF_Documents/MEF10-1.pdf, ://www.metroethernetforum.org/PDF_Documents/MEF10-1.pdf,
Nov. 2006. Nov. 2006.".
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching [RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471,
January 2003. January 2003.
[RFC3945] Mannie, E., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching [RFC3945] Mannie, E., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004. (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004.
[Y.1731] "ITU-T Y.1731". [Y.1731] "ITU-T Y.1731".
8.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[RFC4124] Le Faucheur, F., "Protocol Extensions for Support of [RFC4124] Le Faucheur, F., "Protocol Extensions for Support of
Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 4124, Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 4124,
June 2005. June 2005.
[RFC4201] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., and L. Berger, "Link Bundling
in MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4201, October 2005.
[RFC4204] Lang, J., "Link Management Protocol (LMP)", RFC 4204,
October 2005.
[RFC4394] Fedyk, D., Aboul-Magd, O., Brungard, D., Lang, J., and D.
Papadimitriou, "A Transport Network View of the Link
Management Protocol (LMP)", RFC 4394, February 2006.
[RFC5145] Shiomoto, K., "Framework for MPLS-TE to GMPLS Migration", [RFC5145] Shiomoto, K., "Framework for MPLS-TE to GMPLS Migration",
RFC 5145, March 2008. RFC 5145, March 2008.
[RFC5146] Kumaki, K., "Interworking Requirements to Support [RFC5146] Kumaki, K., "Interworking Requirements to Support
Operation of MPLS-TE over GMPLS Networks", RFC 5146, Operation of MPLS-TE over GMPLS Networks", RFC 5146,
March 2008. March 2008.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Wataru Imajuku (editor) Wataru Imajuku (editor)
NTT Network Innovation Labs NTT Communications Corporation
1-1 Hikari-no-oka 1-1-6 Uchisaiwai-cho
Yokosuka, Kanagawa Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo
Japan Japan
Phone: +81-(46) 859-4315 Phone: +81-(46) 859-4315
Email: imajuku.wataru@lab.ntt.co.jp Email: imajuku.wataru@lab.ntt.co.jp
Yoshiaki Sone Yoshiaki Sone
NTT Network Innovation Labs NTT Network Innovation Labs
1-1 Hikari-no-oka 1-1 Hikari-no-oka
Yokosuka, Kanagawa Yokosuka, Kanagawa
Japan Japan
skipping to change at page 18, line 6 skipping to change at page 18, line 6
Kazuhiro Matsuda Kazuhiro Matsuda
NTT Network Innovation Labs NTT Network Innovation Labs
1-1 Hikari-no-oka 1-1 Hikari-no-oka
Yokosuka, Kanagawa Yokosuka, Kanagawa
Japan Japan
Phone: (46) 859-3177 Phone: (46) 859-3177
Email: matsuda.kazuhiro@lab.ntt.co.jp Email: matsuda.kazuhiro@lab.ntt.co.jp
Tomohiro Otani (editor) Tomohiro Otani (editor)
KDDI Corporation KDDI Corporation
2-3-2 Nishi-shinjukuOhara 2-3-2 Nishi-shinjuku
Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 163-8003 Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 163-8003
Japan Japan
Phone: +81-(3) 3347-6006 Phone: +81-(3) 3347-6006
Email: tm-otani@kddi.com Email: tm-otani@kddi.com
Kenichi Ogaki Kenichi Ogaki
KDDI R&D Laboratories, Inc. KDDI R&D Laboratories, Inc.
2-1-15 Ohara 2-1-15 Ohara
Kamifukuoka, Saitama 356-8502 Kamifukuoka, Saitama 356-8502
skipping to change at page 19, line 7 skipping to change at page 19, line 7
Nabil Bitar (editor) Nabil Bitar (editor)
Verizon Verizon
40 Sylvan Road 40 Sylvan Road
Waltham, MA 02451 Waltham, MA 02451
USA USA
Email: nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com Email: nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com
Full Copyright Statement Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
retain all their rights. publication of this document
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
respect to this document.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an All IETF Documents and the information contained therein are provided
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION THEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any The IETF Trust takes no position regarding the validity or scope of
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights described in any IETF Document or the extent to which any license
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be such rights.
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any Copies of Intellectual Property disclosures made to the IETF
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR
http://www.ietf.org/ipr. repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at any standard or specification contained in an IETF Document. Please
ietf-ipr@ietf.org. address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
The definitive version of an IETF Document is that published by, or
under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of IETF Documents that are
published by third parties, including those that are translated into
other languages, should not be considered to be definitive versions
of IETF Documents. The definitive version of these Legal Provisions
is that published by, or under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of
these Legal Provisions that are published by third parties, including
those that are translated into other languages, should not be
considered to be definitive versions of these Legal Provisions.
For the avoidance of doubt, each Contributor to the IETF Standards
Process licenses each Contribution that he or she makes as part of
the IETF Standards Process to the IETF Trust pursuant to the
provisions of RFC 5378. No language to the contrary, or terms,
conditions or rights that differ from or are inconsistent with the
rights and licenses granted under RFC 5378, shall have any effect and
shall be null and void, whether published or posted by such
Contributor, or included with or in such Contribution.
 End of changes. 45 change blocks. 
100 lines changed or deleted 126 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/