draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-00.txt		draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-01.txt
	Internet Draft Lou Berger (LabN)		Internet Draft Lou Berger (LabN)
	Updates: 3471, 3473, 3945, 4202 Don Fedyk (Nortel)		Updates: 3471, 3473, 3945, 4202 Don Fedyk (Nortel)
	Category: Standards Track		Category: Standards Track
	Expiration Date: February 8, 2009		Expiration Date: August 25, 2009
	August 8, 2008		February 25, 2009
	Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Data Channel Switching Capable (DCSC) and		Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Data Channel Switching Capable (DCSC) and
	Channel Set Label Extensions		Channel Set Label Extensions
	draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-00.txt		draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-01.txt
	Status of this Memo		Status of this Memo
			This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
			provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any		By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
	applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware		applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
	have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes		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.		aware will be disclosed, in accordance with 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-		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/1id-abstracts.html		http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html
	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 February 8, 2009.		This Internet-Draft will expire on August 25, 2009.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright and License Notice
	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 BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
			Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
			(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
			publication of this document. Please review these documents
			carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
			to this document.
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document describes two technology independent extensions to		This document describes two technology-independent extensions to
	Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching. The first extension		Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching. The first extension
	defines the new switching type Data Channel Switching Capable. Data		defines the new switching type Data Channel Switching Capable. Data
	Channel Switching Capable interfaces are able to support switching of		Channel Switching Capable interfaces are able to support switching of
	the whole digital channel presented on single channel interfaces.		the whole digital channel presented on single channel interfaces.
	The second extension defines a new type of generalized label and		The second extension defines a new type of generalized label and
	updates related objects. The new label is called the Generalized		updates related objects. The new label is called the Generalized
	Channel_Set Label and allows more than one data plane label to be		Channel_Set Label and allows more than one data plane label to be
	controlled as part of an LSP.		controlled as part of an LSP.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1 Introduction .............................................. 3		1 Introduction ........................................... 3
	1.1 Conventions used in this document ......................... 3		1.1 Conventions used in this document ...................... 3
	2 Data Channel Switching .................................... 3		2 Data Channel Switching ................................. 3
	3 Generalized Channel_Set Label Related Formats ............. 4		2.1 Compatibility .......................................... 4
	3.1 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST Object .............. 4		3 Generalized Channel_Set Label Related Formats .......... 4
	3.2 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object ...................... 4		3.1 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST Object ........... 5
	3.3 Other Label related Objects ............................... 7		3.2 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object ................... 5
	4 IANA Considerations ....................................... 7		3.3 Other Label related Objects ............................ 7
	4.1 Data Channel Switching Type ............................... 7		3.4 Compatibility .......................................... 8
	4.2 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST Object .............. 7		4 IANA Considerations .................................... 8
	4.3 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object ...................... 8		4.1 Data Channel Switching Type ............................ 8
	5 Security Considerations ................................... 8		4.2 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST Object ........... 8
	6 References ................................................ 8		4.3 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object ................... 9
	6.1 Normative References ...................................... 8		5 Security Considerations ................................ 9
	6.2 Informative References .................................... 9		6 References ............................................. 9
	7 Acknowledgments ........................................... 9		6.1 Normative References ................................... 9
	8 Author's Addresses ........................................ 10		6.2 Informative References ................................. 10
	9 Full Copyright Statement .................................. 10		7 Acknowledgments ........................................ 11
	10 Intellectual Property ..................................... 10		8 Author's Addresses ..................................... 11
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	This document describes two technology independent extensions to		This document describes two technology independent extensions to
	Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS). Both of		Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS). Both of these
	extensions were initially defined to in the context of Ethernet		extensions were initially defined to in the context of Ethernet
	services, see [GMPLS-ESVCS] and [GMPLS-MEF-UNI], but are generic in		services, see [GMPLS-ESVCS] and [GMPLS-MEF-UNI], but are generic in
	nature and may be useful to any switching technology controlled via		nature and may be useful to any switching technology controlled via
	GMPLS.		GMPLS.
	The first extension defines a new switching type, which is called		The first extension defines a new switching type, which is called
	Data Channel Switching Capable, or DCSC. DCSC interfaces are able to		Data Channel Switching Capable, or DCSC. DCSC interfaces are able to
	support switching of the whole digital channel presented on single		support switching of the whole digital channel presented on single
	channel interfaces. The second extension defines a new type of		channel interfaces. The second extension defines a new type of
	generalized label and updates related objects. The new label is		generalized label and updates related objects. The new label is
	skipping to change at page 3, line 33		skipping to change at page 3, line 33
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",		The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
	"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].
	2. Data Channel Switching		2. Data Channel Switching
	Current GMPLS switching types are defined in [RFC3945] and [RFC3471]		Current GMPLS switching types are defined in [RFC3945] and [RFC3471]
	and support switching at the packet (PSC), frame (L2SC), time-slot		and support switching at the packet (PSC), frame (L2SC), time-slot
	(TDM), frequency (LSC) and fiber (FSC) granularities. One type of		(TDM), frequency (LSC) and fiber (FSC) granularities. One type of
	switching that is not well represented in this current set switching		switching that is not well represented in this current set is
	that takes all data received on an ingress port and switches it		switching that occurs of the when all data received on an ingress
	through a network to an egress port. While there are similarities		port is switched through a network to an egress port. While there
	between this level of switching and the "opaque single wavelength"		are similarities between this level of switching and the "opaque
	case described in Section 3.5 of [RFC4202], such port-to-port		single wavelength" case described in Section 3.5 of [RFC4202], such
	switching is not limited to the optical switching technology implied		port-to-port switching is not limited to the optical switching
	by the LSC type. Therefore, a new switching type is defined.		technology implied by the LSC type. FSC is also similar, but it is
			restricted to fiber ports and also supports multiple data channels
			with in the fiber port.
	The new switching type is called Data Channel Switching Capable		This document defines the new switching type called Data Channel
	(DCSC). (Port switching seems a more intuitive name, but it collides		Switching Capable (DCSC). (Port switching seems a more intuitive
	with PSC so isn't used.) DCSC interfaces are able to support		name, but it collides with PSC so isn't used.) DCSC interfaces are
	switching of the whole digital channel presented on single channel		able to support switching of the whole digital channel presented on
	interfaces. Interfaces that inherently support multiple channels,		single channel interfaces. Interfaces that inherently support
	e.g., WDM and channelized TDM interfaces, are specifically excluded		multiple channels, e.g., WDM and channelized TDM interfaces, are
	from this type. Any interface that can be represented as a single		specifically excluded from this type. Any interface that can be
	digital channel are included. Examples include concatenated TDM and		represented as a single digital channel are included. Examples
	line encoded interfaces. Framed interfaces may also be included when		include concatenated TDM and line encoded interfaces. Framed
	they support switching on an interface granularity.		interfaces may also be included when they support switching on an
			interface granularity.
	DCSC is represented in GMPLS, see [RFC3471] and [RFC4202], using the		DCSC is represented in GMPLS, see [RFC3471] and [RFC4202], using the
	value TBA (by IANA).		value TBA (by IANA).
	Port labels, as defined in [RFC3471], SHOULD be used for LSPs		Port labels, as defined in [RFC3471], SHOULD be used for LSPs
	signaled using the DCSC Switching Type.		signaled using the DCSC Switching Type. The DCSC Switching Type may
			be used with wither the in the Generalized Label Request object,
			[RFC3473], or the Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST Object
			defined below.
			2.1. Compatibility
			Transit and egress nodes that do not support the DCSC Switching Type
			which received a Path message with a Label Request containing the
			DCSC Switching Type will behave in the same way nodes generally
			handle the case of an unsupported Switching Type. Specifically, per
			[RFC3473], such nodes are required to generate a PathErr message,
			with a "Routing problem/Unsupported Encoding" indication.
			Ingress nodes initiating a Path message containing a Label Request
			containing the DCSC Switching Type should receive such PathErr
			messages, and can then notify the requesting application user as
			appropriate.
	3. Generalized Channel_Set Label Related Formats		3. Generalized Channel_Set Label Related Formats
	This section defines a new type of generalized label and updates		This section defines a new type of generalized label and updates
	related objects. This section updates the label related definitions		related objects. This section updates the label related definitions
	of [RFC3473]. The ability to communicate more than one label as part		of [RFC3473]. The ability to communicate more than one label as part
	of the same LSP was motivated by the support for the communication of		of the same LSP was motivated by the support for the communication of
	one or more VLAN IDs, but the formats defined in this section are not		one or more VLAN IDs. Simple concatenation of labels as is done in
	technology specific and may be useful for other switching		[RFC4606] was deemed impractical given the large number of VLAN IDs
	technologies.		(up to 4096) that may need to be communicated. The formats defined
			in this section are not technology specific and may be useful for
			other switching technologies. The LABEL_SET object defined in
			[RFC3473] serves as the foundation for the defined formats.
	3.1. Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST Object		3.1. Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST Object
	The Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST object is used to indicate		The Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST object is used to indicate
	that the Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object is to be used with the		that the Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object is to be used with the
	associated LSP. The format of the Generalized Channel_Set		associated LSP. The format of the Generalized Channel_Set
	LABEL_REQUEST object is the same as the Generalized LABEL_REQUEST		LABEL_REQUEST object is the same as the Generalized LABEL_REQUEST
	object and uses of C-Type of TBA.		object and uses of C-Type of TBA.
	3.2. Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object		3.2. Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object
	skipping to change at page 6, line 32		skipping to change at page 7, line 12
	(0) value MUST NOT be used in both the LABEL and UPSTREAM_LABEL		(0) value MUST NOT be used in both the LABEL and UPSTREAM_LABEL
	object of the same LSP.		object of the same LSP.
	Label Type: 14 bits		Label Type: 14 bits
	See [RFC3473] for a description of this field.		See [RFC3473] for a description of this field.
	Subchannel: Variable		Subchannel: Variable
	See [RFC3471] for a description of this field. Note that this		See [RFC3471] for a description of this field. Note that this
	field may not be 32 bit aligned.		field might not be 32 bit aligned.
	Padding: Variable		Padding: Variable
	Padding is used to ensure that the length of a Channel_Set Sub-		Padding is used to ensure that the length of a Channel_Set Sub-
	Object meets the multiple of 4 byte size requirement stated		Object meets the multiple of 4 byte size requirement stated
	above. The field is only required when the Subchannel field is		above. The field is only required when the Subchannel field is
	not 32 bit aligned and the number of included Subchannel fields		not 32 bit aligned and the number of included Subchannel fields
	result in the Sub-Object not being 32 bit aligned.		result in the Sub-Object not being 32 bit aligned.
	The Padding field MUST be included when the number of bits		The Padding field MUST be included when the number of bits
	skipping to change at page 7, line 18		skipping to change at page 8, line 5
	formats of the other label related objects are also impacted.		formats of the other label related objects are also impacted.
	Processing of these objects is not modified and remain per their		Processing of these objects is not modified and remain per their
	respective specifications. The other label related objects are		respective specifications. The other label related objects are
	defined in [RFC3473] and include:		defined in [RFC3473] and include:
	- SUGGESTED_LABEL object		- SUGGESTED_LABEL object
	- LABEL_SET object		- LABEL_SET object
	- ACCEPTABLE_LABEL_SET object		- ACCEPTABLE_LABEL_SET object
	- UPSTREAM_LABEL object		- UPSTREAM_LABEL object
	- RECOVERY_LABEL object		- RECOVERY_LABEL object
			3.4. Compatibility
			Transit and egress nodes that do not support the Generalized
			Channel_Set Label related formats will first receive a Path message
			containing Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST object. When a such
			a node receives the Path message, per [RFC3209], it will sends a
			PathErr with the error code "Unknown object C_Type" .
			Ingress nodes initiating a Path message containing a Generalized
			Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST object should receive such PathErr
			messages, and can then notify the requesting application user as
			appropriate.
	4. IANA Considerations		4. IANA Considerations
	IANA is requested to administer assignment of new values for		IANA is requested to administer assignment of new values for
	namespaces defined in this document and reviewed in this section.		namespaces defined in this document and reviewed in this section.
	4.1. Data Channel Switching Type		4.1. Data Channel Switching Type
	Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the assignment in		Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the assignment in
	the "Switching Types" section of the "GMPLS Signaling Parameters"		the "Switching Types" section of the "GMPLS Signaling Parameters"
	registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-		registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-
	parameters:		parameters:
	Value Type Reference		Value Type Reference
	----- --------------------------- ---------		----- --------------------------- ---------
	125* Data Channel Switching Capable (DCSC) [This document]		125* Data Channel Switching Capable (DCSC) [This document]
	(*) Suggested value.		(*) Suggested value.
			It should be noted that the assigned value should be reflected in
			IANAGmplsSwitchingTypeTC at
			http://www.iana.org/assignments/ianagmplstc-mib.
	4.2. Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST Object		4.2. Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST Object
	Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the assignment in		Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the assignment in
	the "Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types" section of the		the "Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types" section of the
	"RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at		"RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at
	http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters.		http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters.
	A new class type for the existing LABEL_REQUEST Object class number		A new class type for the existing LABEL_REQUEST Object class number
	(19) with the following definition:		(19) with the following definition:
	skipping to change at page 8, line 37		skipping to change at page 9, line 37
	(*) Suggested value.		(*) Suggested value.
	5. Security Considerations		5. Security Considerations
	This document introduces new message object formats for use in GMPLS		This document introduces new message object formats for use in GMPLS
	signaling [RFC3473]. It does not introduce any new signaling		signaling [RFC3473]. It does not introduce any new signaling
	messages, nor change the relationship between LSRs that are adjacent		messages, nor change the relationship between LSRs that are adjacent
	in the control plane. As such, this document introduces no additional		in the control plane. As such, this document introduces no additional
	security considerations. See [RFC3473] for relevant security		security considerations. See [RFC3473] for relevant security
	considerations.		considerations. Additionally, the existing framework for MPLS and
			GMPLS security is documented in [MPLS-SEC].
	6. References		6. References
	6.1. Normative References		6.1. Normative References
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels," RFC 2119.		Requirement Levels," RFC 2119.
	[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T.,		[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T.,
	Srinivasan, V. and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions		Srinivasan, V. and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions
	skipping to change at page 9, line 37		skipping to change at page 10, line 41
	Progress, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-02.txt,		Progress, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-02.txt,
	August 2008.		August 2008.
	[GMPLS-MEF-UNI] Berger, L., Papadimitriou, P., Fedyk, D.,		[GMPLS-MEF-UNI] Berger, L., Papadimitriou, P., Fedyk, D.,
	"Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support For Metro		"Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support For Metro
	Ethernet Forum and G.8011 User-Network Interface		Ethernet Forum and G.8011 User-Network Interface
	(UNI)", Work in Progress,		(UNI)", Work in Progress,
	draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-01.txt,		draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-01.txt,
	August 2008.		August 2008.
			[MPLS-SEC] Fang, L., et al, "Security Framework for MPLS and
			GMPLS Networks", Work in Progress,
			draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework-04.txt,
			November 2008.
			[RFC4606] Mannie, E., et al "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
			Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for Synchronous Optical
			Network (SONET) and Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH)
			Control", RFC 4606, August 2006.
	7. Acknowledgments		7. Acknowledgments
	Dimitri Papadimitriou provided substantial textual contributions to		Dimitri Papadimitriou provided substantial textual contributions to
	this document and coauthored earlier versions of this document.		this document and coauthored earlier versions of this document.
	The authors would like to thank Evelyne Roch, Stephen Shew, and		The authors would like to thank Evelyne Roch, Stephen Shew, and
	Adrian Farrel for their valuable comments.		Adrian Farrel for their valuable comments.
	8. Author's Addresses		8. Author's Addresses
	skipping to change at page 10, line 19		skipping to change at line 452
	Phone: +1-301-468-9228		Phone: +1-301-468-9228
	Email: lberger@labn.net		Email: lberger@labn.net
	Don Fedyk		Don Fedyk
	Nortel Networks		Nortel Networks
	600 Technology Park Drive		600 Technology Park Drive
	Billerica, MA, 01821		Billerica, MA, 01821
	Phone: +1-978-288-3041		Phone: +1-978-288-3041
	Email: dwfedyk@nortel.com		Email: dwfedyk@nortel.com
	9. Full Copyright Statement		Generated on: Wed Feb 25 20:00:22 EST 2009
	Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
	This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
	contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
	retain all their rights.
	This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
	"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
	OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
	THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
	OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
	THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
	WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
	10. Intellectual Property
	The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
	Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed
	to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology
	described in this document or the extent to which any license
	under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it
	represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any
	such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights
	in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
	assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
	attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use
	of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
	specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository
	at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
	The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention
	any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other
	proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required
	to implement this standard. Please address the information to the
	IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
	Acknowledgement
	Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
	Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
	Generated on: Fri Aug 8 09:53:22 EDT 2008
End of changes. 21 change blocks.
	51 lines changed or deleted		113 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/