--- 1/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-00.txt 2009-02-26 04:12:06.000000000 +0100 +++ 2/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-01.txt 2009-02-26 04:12:06.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,89 +1,100 @@ Internet Draft Lou Berger (LabN) Updates: 3471, 3473, 3945, 4202 Don Fedyk (Nortel) 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 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 + 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 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 - 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 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 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 - This document describes two technology independent extensions to + This document describes two technology-independent extensions to Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching. The first extension defines the new switching type Data Channel Switching Capable. Data Channel Switching Capable interfaces are able to support switching of the whole digital channel presented on single channel interfaces. The second extension defines a new type of generalized label and updates related objects. The new label is called the Generalized Channel_Set Label and allows more than one data plane label to be controlled as part of an LSP. Table of Contents - 1 Introduction .............................................. 3 - 1.1 Conventions used in this document ......................... 3 - 2 Data Channel Switching .................................... 3 - 3 Generalized Channel_Set Label Related Formats ............. 4 - 3.1 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST Object .............. 4 - 3.2 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object ...................... 4 - 3.3 Other Label related Objects ............................... 7 - 4 IANA Considerations ....................................... 7 - 4.1 Data Channel Switching Type ............................... 7 - 4.2 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST Object .............. 7 - 4.3 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object ...................... 8 - 5 Security Considerations ................................... 8 - 6 References ................................................ 8 - 6.1 Normative References ...................................... 8 - 6.2 Informative References .................................... 9 - 7 Acknowledgments ........................................... 9 - 8 Author's Addresses ........................................ 10 - 9 Full Copyright Statement .................................. 10 -10 Intellectual Property ..................................... 10 + 1 Introduction ........................................... 3 + 1.1 Conventions used in this document ...................... 3 + 2 Data Channel Switching ................................. 3 + 2.1 Compatibility .......................................... 4 + 3 Generalized Channel_Set Label Related Formats .......... 4 + 3.1 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST Object ........... 5 + 3.2 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object ................... 5 + 3.3 Other Label related Objects ............................ 7 + 3.4 Compatibility .......................................... 8 + 4 IANA Considerations .................................... 8 + 4.1 Data Channel Switching Type ............................ 8 + 4.2 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST Object ........... 8 + 4.3 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object ................... 9 + 5 Security Considerations ................................ 9 + 6 References ............................................. 9 + 6.1 Normative References ................................... 9 + 6.2 Informative References ................................. 10 + 7 Acknowledgments ........................................ 11 + 8 Author's Addresses ..................................... 11 1. Introduction 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 services, see [GMPLS-ESVCS] and [GMPLS-MEF-UNI], but are generic in nature and may be useful to any switching technology controlled via GMPLS. The first extension defines a new switching type, which is called Data Channel Switching Capable, or DCSC. DCSC interfaces are able to support switching of the whole digital channel presented on single channel interfaces. The second extension defines a new type of generalized label and updates related objects. The new label is @@ -94,54 +105,77 @@ The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 2. Data Channel Switching Current GMPLS switching types are defined in [RFC3945] and [RFC3471] and support switching at the packet (PSC), frame (L2SC), time-slot (TDM), frequency (LSC) and fiber (FSC) granularities. One type of - switching that is not well represented in this current set switching - that takes all data received on an ingress port and switches it - through a network to an egress port. While there are similarities - between this level of switching and the "opaque single wavelength" - case described in Section 3.5 of [RFC4202], such port-to-port - switching is not limited to the optical switching technology implied - by the LSC type. Therefore, a new switching type is defined. + switching that is not well represented in this current set is + switching that occurs of the when all data received on an ingress + port is switched through a network to an egress port. While there + are similarities between this level of switching and the "opaque + single wavelength" case described in Section 3.5 of [RFC4202], such + port-to-port switching is not limited to the optical switching + 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 - (DCSC). (Port switching seems a more intuitive name, but it collides - with PSC so isn't used.) DCSC interfaces are able to support - switching of the whole digital channel presented on single channel - interfaces. Interfaces that inherently support multiple channels, - e.g., WDM and channelized TDM interfaces, are specifically excluded - from this type. Any interface that can be represented as a single - digital channel are included. Examples include concatenated TDM and - line encoded interfaces. Framed interfaces may also be included when - they support switching on an interface granularity. + This document defines the new switching type called Data Channel + Switching Capable (DCSC). (Port switching seems a more intuitive + name, but it collides with PSC so isn't used.) DCSC interfaces are + able to support switching of the whole digital channel presented on + single channel interfaces. Interfaces that inherently support + multiple channels, e.g., WDM and channelized TDM interfaces, are + specifically excluded from this type. Any interface that can be + represented as a single digital channel are included. Examples + include concatenated TDM and line encoded interfaces. Framed + interfaces may also be included when they support switching on an + interface granularity. DCSC is represented in GMPLS, see [RFC3471] and [RFC4202], using the value TBA (by IANA). 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 This section defines a new type of generalized label and updates related objects. This section updates the label related definitions 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 - one or more VLAN IDs, but the formats defined in this section are not - technology specific and may be useful for other switching - technologies. + one or more VLAN IDs. Simple concatenation of labels as is done in + [RFC4606] was deemed impractical given the large number of VLAN IDs + (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 The Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST object is used to indicate that the Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object is to be used with the associated LSP. The format of the Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST object is the same as the Generalized LABEL_REQUEST object and uses of C-Type of TBA. 3.2. Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object @@ -224,21 +257,21 @@ (0) value MUST NOT be used in both the LABEL and UPSTREAM_LABEL object of the same LSP. Label Type: 14 bits See [RFC3473] for a description of this field. Subchannel: Variable 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 is used to ensure that the length of a Channel_Set Sub- Object meets the multiple of 4 byte size requirement stated above. The field is only required when the Subchannel field is not 32 bit aligned and the number of included Subchannel fields result in the Sub-Object not being 32 bit aligned. The Padding field MUST be included when the number of bits @@ -257,38 +290,55 @@ formats of the other label related objects are also impacted. Processing of these objects is not modified and remain per their respective specifications. The other label related objects are defined in [RFC3473] and include: - SUGGESTED_LABEL object - LABEL_SET object - ACCEPTABLE_LABEL_SET object - UPSTREAM_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 IANA is requested to administer assignment of new values for namespaces defined in this document and reviewed in this section. 4.1. Data Channel Switching Type Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the assignment in the "Switching Types" section of the "GMPLS Signaling Parameters" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig- parameters: Value Type Reference ----- --------------------------- --------- 125* Data Channel Switching Capable (DCSC) [This document] (*) 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 Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the assignment in the "Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types" section of the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters. A new class type for the existing LABEL_REQUEST Object class number (19) with the following definition: @@ -314,21 +364,22 @@ (*) Suggested value. 5. Security Considerations This document introduces new message object formats for use in GMPLS signaling [RFC3473]. It does not introduce any new signaling messages, nor change the relationship between LSRs that are adjacent in the control plane. As such, this document introduces no additional 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 6.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels," RFC 2119. [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V. and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions @@ -359,20 +410,30 @@ Progress, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-02.txt, August 2008. [GMPLS-MEF-UNI] Berger, L., Papadimitriou, P., Fedyk, D., "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support For Metro Ethernet Forum and G.8011 User-Network Interface (UNI)", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-01.txt, 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 Dimitri Papadimitriou provided substantial textual contributions to this document and coauthored earlier versions of this document. The authors would like to thank Evelyne Roch, Stephen Shew, and Adrian Farrel for their valuable comments. 8. Author's Addresses @@ -381,56 +442,11 @@ Phone: +1-301-468-9228 Email: lberger@labn.net Don Fedyk Nortel Networks 600 Technology Park Drive Billerica, MA, 01821 Phone: +1-978-288-3041 Email: dwfedyk@nortel.com -9. Full Copyright Statement - - 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 +Generated on: Wed Feb 25 20:00:22 EST 2009