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/