draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-04.txt   rfc6002.txt 
Internet Draft Lou Berger (LabN)
Updates: 3471, 3473, 3945, 4202, 4203, 5307 Don Fedyk (Alcatel-Lucent)
Category: Standards Track
Expiration Date: August 18, 2010
February 18, 2010 Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Berger
Request for Comments: 6002 LabN
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Data Channel Switching Capable (DCSC) and Updates: 3471, 3473, 3945, 4202, 4203, 5307 D. Fedyk
Channel Set Label Extensions Category: Standards Track Alcatel-Lucent
ISSN: 2070-1721 October 2010
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-04.txt Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Data Channel Switching Capable (DCSC)
and Channel Set Label Extensions
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 (GMPLS). The first
defines the new switching type Data Channel Switching Capable. extension defines the new switching type Data Channel Switching
Data Channel Switching Capable interfaces are able to support Capable. Data Channel Switching Capable interfaces are able to
switching of the whole digital channel presented on single channel support switching of the whole digital channel presented on single
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
called the Generalized Channel_Set Label and allows more than one called the Generalized Channel_Set Label and allows more than one
data plane label to be controlled as part of an LSP. data plane label to be controlled as part of a Label Switched Path
(LSP).
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of 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 Status of This Memo
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 This is an Internet Standards Track document.
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 18, 2010 Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6002.
Copyright and License Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1 Introduction ........................................... 3 1. Introduction ....................................................2
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
2.1 Compatibility .......................................... 4 2.1. Compatibility ..............................................4
3 Generalized Channel_Set Label Related Formats .......... 4 3. Generalized Channel_Set Label Related Formats ...................4
3.1 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST Object ........... 5 3.1. Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST Object ...............4
3.2 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object ................... 5 3.2. Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object .......................4
3.3 Other Label Related Objects ............................ 8 3.3. Other Label-Related Objects ................................7
3.4 Compatibility .......................................... 8 3.4. Compatibility ..............................................7
4 IANA Considerations .................................... 8 4. IANA Considerations .............................................8
4.1 Data Channel Switching Type ............................ 8 4.1. Data Channel Switching Type ................................8
4.2 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST Object ........... 9 4.2. Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST Object ...............8
4.3 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object ................... 9 4.3. Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object .......................8
5 Security Considerations ................................ 10 5. Security Considerations .........................................9
6 References ............................................. 10 6. References ......................................................9
6.1 Normative References ................................... 10 6.1. Normative References .......................................9
6.2 Informative References ................................. 11 6.2. Informative References ....................................10
7 Acknowledgments ........................................ 11 Acknowledgments ...................................................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 these Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS). Both of these
extensions were initially defined in the context of Ethernet extensions were initially defined in the context of Ethernet
services, see [GMPLS-ESVCS] and [GMPLS-MEF-UNI], but are generic in services, see [RFC6004] and [RFC6005], but are generic in nature and
nature and may be useful to any switching technology controlled via 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 (DCSC). DCSC interfaces are able to Data Channel Switching Capable (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
called the Generalized Channel_Set Label and allows more than one called the Generalized Channel_Set Label and allows more than one
data plane label to be controlled as part of a GMPLS label-switched data plane label to be controlled as part of a GMPLS Label Switched
path (LSP). Path (LSP).
1.1. Conventions used in this document 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document
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. Parallel (TDM), frequency (LSC), and fiber (FSC) granularities. Parallel
definitions for these switching types are also made in [RFC4202], definitions for these switching types are also made in [RFC4202],
[RFC4203] and [RFC5307]. [RFC4203], and [RFC5307].
One type of switching that is not well represented in this current One type of switching that is not well represented in this current
set is switching that occurs when all data received on an ingress set is switching that occurs when all data received on an ingress
port is switched through a network to an egress port. While there port is switched through a network to an egress port. While there
are similarities between this level of switching and the "opaque are similarities between this level of switching and the "opaque
single wavelength" case described in Section 3.5 of [RFC4202], such single wavelength" case, described in Section 3.5 of [RFC4202], such
port-to-port switching is not limited to the optical switching port-to-port switching is not limited to the optical switching
technology implied by the LSC type. FSC is also similar, but it is technology implied by the LSC type. FSC is also similar, but it is
restricted to fiber ports and also supports multiple data channels restricted to fiber ports and also supports multiple data channels
within a fiber port. within a fiber port.
This document defines a new switching type called Data Channel This document defines a new switching type called Data Channel
Switching Capable (DCSC). Port switching seems a more intuitive name, Switching Capable (DCSC). Port switching seems a more intuitive
but this naming collides with PSC so is not used. DCSC interfaces name, but this naming collides with PSC so is not used. DCSC
are able to support switching of the whole digital channel presented interfaces are able to support switching of the whole digital channel
on single channel interfaces. Interfaces that inherently support presented on single channel interfaces. Interfaces that inherently
multiple channels, e.g., WDM and channelized TDM interfaces, are support multiple channels, e.g., Wavelength Division Multiplexing
specifically excluded from this type. Any interface that can be (WDM) and channelized TDM interfaces, are specifically excluded from
represented as a single digital channel are included. Examples this type. Any interface that can be represented as a single digital
include concatenated TDM and line encoded interfaces. Framed channel are included. Examples include concatenated TDM and line-
interfaces may also be included when they support switching on an encoded interfaces. Framed interfaces may also be included when they
interface granularity, for example Ethernet terminated at the support switching on an interface granularity, for example Ethernet
physical (port) level and all traffic received on a port is switched terminated at the physical (port) level and all traffic received on a
to a physical port at the LSP egress. port is switched to a physical port at the LSP egress.
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). The DCSC value is carried in routing protocols value 125. The DCSC value is carried in routing protocols in the
in the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor defined in Interface Switching Capability Descriptor defined in [RFC4202], and
[RFC4202], and used in OSPF [RFC4203] and IS-IS [RFC5307]. These used in OSPF [RFC4203] and IS-IS [RFC5307]. These documents are not
documents are not otherwise modified by this document. otherwise modified by this document.
The DCSC Switching Type may be used with the Generalized Label The DCSC Switching Type may be used with the Generalized Label
Request object, [RFC3473], or the Generalized Channel_Set Request object, [RFC3473], or the Generalized Channel_Set
LABEL_REQUEST Object defined below. Port labels, as defined in LABEL_REQUEST object defined below. Port labels, as defined in
[RFC3471], SHOULD be used for LSPs signaled using the DCSC Switching [RFC3471], SHOULD be used for LSPs signaled using the DCSC Switching
Type. Type.
2.1. Compatibility 2.1. Compatibility
Transit and egress nodes that do not support the DCSC Switching Type Transit and egress nodes that do not support the DCSC Switching Type
when receiving a Path message with a Label Request containing the when receiving a Path message with a Label Request containing the
DCSC Switching Type will behave in the same way nodes generally DCSC Switching Type will behave in the same way nodes generally
handle the case of an unsupported Switching Type. Specifically, per handle the case of an unsupported Switching Type. Specifically, per
[RFC3473], such nodes are required to generate a PathErr message, [RFC3473], such nodes are required to generate a PathErr message,
with a "Routing problem/Unsupported Encoding" indication. with a "Routing problem/Unsupported Encoding" indication.
Ingress nodes initiating a Path message containing a Label Request Ingress nodes initiating a Path message containing a Label Request
containing the DCSC Switching Type, receiving such a PathErr containing the DCSC Switching Type, receiving such a PathErr
messages, then notify the requesting application user as appropriate. messages, 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. Simple concatenation of labels as is done in one or more VLAN IDs. Simple concatenation of labels as is done in
[RFC4606] was deemed impractical given the large number of VLAN IDs [RFC4606] was deemed impractical given the large number of VLAN IDs
(up to 4096) that may need to be communicated. The formats defined (up to 4096) that may need to be communicated. The formats defined
in this section are not technology specific and may be useful for in this section are not technology specific and may be useful for
other switching technologies. The LABEL_SET object defined in other switching technologies. The LABEL_SET object defined in
[RFC3473] serves as the foundation for the defined formats. [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 a C-Type of TBA. object and uses a C-Type of 5.
3.2. Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object 3.2. Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object
The Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object communicates one or more The Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object communicates one or more
labels, all of which can be used equivalently in the data path labels, all of which can be used equivalently in the data path
associated with a single LSP. The format of the Generalized associated with a single LSP. The format of the Generalized
Channel_Set LABEL Object is based on the LABEL_SET object defined in Channel_Set LABEL Object is based on the LABEL_SET object defined in
[RFC3473]. It differs from the the LABEL_SET object in that the full [RFC3473]. It differs from the LABEL_SET object in that the full set
set may be represented in a single object rather than the multiple may be represented in a single object rather than the multiple
objects required by the [RFC3473] LABEL_SET object. The object MUST objects required by the [RFC3473] LABEL_SET object. The object MUST
be used on LSPs that use the Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST be used on LSPs that use the Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST
object. The object MUST be processed per [RFC3473]. Make-before- object. The object MUST be processed per [RFC3473]. Make-before-
break procedures, see [RFC3209], SHOULD be used when modifying the break procedures, see [RFC3209], SHOULD be used when modifying the
Channel_Set LABEL object. Channel_Set LABEL object.
The format of the Generalized Channel_Set LABEL object is: The format of the Generalized Channel_Set LABEL object is:
o Generalized Channel_Set LABEL object: Class = 16, C-Type = TBA (By o Generalized Channel_Set LABEL object: Class = 16, C-Type = 4
IANA)
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Channel_Set Sub-Object 1 | | Channel_Set Subobject 1 |
| ... | | ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: : : : : :
: : : : : :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Channel_Set Sub-Object N | | Channel_Set Subobject N |
| ... | | ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Channel_Set Sub-Object size is measured in bytes and MUST always The Channel_Set Subobject size is measured in bytes and MUST always
be a multiple of 4, and at least 4, and has the following format: be a multiple of 4, and at least 4, and has the following format:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Action | Num Subchannels | Label Type | | Action | Num Subchannels | Label Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Subchannel 1 | | Subchannel 1 |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... | : | ... | :
skipping to change at page 6, line 27 skipping to change at page 6, line 5
: : : : : :
: : : : : :
: : : : : :
: : : : : :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Subchannel N | | Subchannel N |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... | Padding | | ... | Padding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Action: 8 bits Action: 8 bits
See [RFC3471] for definition of actions. Range actions SHOULD See [RFC3471] for definition of actions. Range actions SHOULD be
be used when possible to minimize the size of the Channel_Set used when possible to minimize the size of the Channel_Set LABEL
LABEL Object. Object.
Number of Subchannels: 10 bits Number of Subchannels: 10 bits
Indicates the number of subchannels carried in the sub-object. Indicates the number of subchannels carried in the subobject.
When the number of subchannels required exceeds the limit of When the number of subchannels required exceeds the limit of the
the field, i.e., 1024, multiple Channel_Set Sub-Objects MUST be field, i.e., 1024, multiple Channel_Set Subobjects MUST be used.
used. Note that the size of the sub-object may result in a Note that the size of the subobject may result in a Path message
Path message being larger than a single unfragmented IP packet. being larger than a single unfragmented IP packet. See Section
See Section 4.4 of [GMPLS-ESVCS] for an example of how this 4.4 of [RFC6004] for an example of how this case may be handled.
case may be handled.
A value of zero (0) has special meaning and MAY be used in A value of zero (0) has special meaning and MAY be used in either
either the LABEL or UPSTREAM_LABEL object. A value of zero (0) the LABEL or UPSTREAM_LABEL object. A value of zero (0) is used
is used in a LABEL or UPSTREAM_LABEL object to indicate that in a LABEL or UPSTREAM_LABEL object to indicate that the
the subchannel(s) used in the corresponding (downstream or subchannel(s) used in the corresponding (downstream or upstream)
upstream) direction MUST match the subchannel(s) carried in the direction MUST match the subchannel(s) carried in the reverse
reverse directions label object. When value of zero (0) is directions label object. When value of zero (0) is used, no
used, no Subchannels are included in the Channel_Set Sub-Object subchannels are included in the Channel_Set Subobject and only one
and only one Channel_Set Sub-Object may be present. The zero Channel_Set Subobject may be present. The zero (0) value MUST NOT
(0) value MUST NOT be used in both the LABEL and UPSTREAM_LABEL be used in both the LABEL and UPSTREAM_LABEL objects of the same
objects of the same LSP. Note that unacceptable label values LSP. Note that unacceptable label values continue to be handled
continue to be handled according to [RFC3209] and [RFC3473], according to [RFC3209] and [RFC3473], i.e., they result in PathErr
i.e., they result in PathErr or ResvErr messages with a or ResvErr messages with a "Routing problem/Unacceptable label
"Routing problem/Unacceptable label value" indication. For value" indication. For example, in the case where a Resv message
example, in the case where a Resv message containing a zero (0) containing a zero (0) in both the LABEL and UPSTREAM_LABEL objects
in both the LABEL and UPSTREAM_LABEL objects is received, the is received, the node would generate a ResvErr message.
node would generate a ResvErr message.
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 might 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
Object meets the multiple of 4 byte size requirement stated Subobject 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 Subobject 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
represented in all the Subchannel fields included in a represented in all the Subchannel fields included in a Generalized
Generalized Channel_Set Sub-Object result in the Sub-Object not Channel_Set Subobject result in the Subobject not being 32-bit
being 32 bit aligned. When present, the Padding field MUST aligned. When present, the Padding field MUST have a length that
have a length that results in the Sub-Object being 32 bit results in the Subobject being 32-bit aligned. When present, the
aligned. When present, the Padding field MUST be set to a zero Padding field MUST be set to a zero (0) value on transmission and
(0) value on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt. MUST be ignored on receipt. These bits SHOULD be passed through
These bits SHOULD be passed through unmodified by transit unmodified by transit nodes.
nodes.
Note that the overall length of a Channel_Set Sub-Object is Note that the overall length of a Channel_Set Subobject is
determined based on the value of the Num Subchannels field together determined based on the value of the Num Subchannels field
with the size of each Subchannel field as well as any required together with the size of each Subchannel field as well as any
padding. The size of the Subchannel field is uniquely identified by required padding. The size of the Subchannel field is uniquely
the Label Type field. identified by the Label Type field.
3.3. Other Label Related Objects 3.3. Other Label-Related Objects
The previous section introduced a new LABEL object. As such the The previous section introduced a new LABEL object. As such the
formats of the other label related objects and subobjects are also formats of the other label-related objects and subobjects are also
impacted. Processing of these objects and subobjects is not modified impacted. Processing of these objects and subobjects is not modified
and remains per their respective specifications. The other label and remains per their respective specifications. The other label
related objects and subobjects are defined in [RFC3473] and include: related objects and subobjects are 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
- Label ERO subobject - Label ERO subobject
- Label RRO subobject - Label RRO subobject
The label related objects and subobjects each contain a Label field, The label-related objects and subobjects each contain a Label field,
all of which may carry any label type. As any label type may be all of which may carry any label type. As any label type may be
carried, the introduction of a new label type means that the new carried, the introduction of a new label type means that the new
label type may be carried in the Label field of each of the label label type may be carried in the Label field of each of the label-
related objects and subobjects. No new definition needs to specified related objects and subobjects. No new definition needs to specified
as their original specification is label type agnostic. as their original specification is label-type agnostic.
3.4. Compatibility 3.4. Compatibility
Transit and egress nodes that do not support the Generalized Transit and egress nodes that do not support the Generalized
Channel_Set Label related formats will first receive a Path message Channel_Set Label related formats will first receive a Path message
containing Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST object. When such a containing Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST object. When such a
node receives the Path message, per [RFC3209], it will send a PathErr node receives the Path message, per [RFC3209], it will send a PathErr
with the error code "Unknown object C_Type". with the error code "Unknown object C_Type".
Ingress nodes initiating a Path message containing a Generalized Ingress nodes initiating a Path message containing a Generalized
Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST object on receiving such a PathErr Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST object on receiving such a PathErr
messages, then notify the requesting application user as appropriate. messages, then notify the requesting application user as appropriate.
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to administer assignment of new values for
namespaces defined in this document and summarized in this section.
4.1. Data Channel Switching Type IANA has assigned new values for namespaces defined in this document
and summarized in this section. The registries are available from
http://www.iana.org.
Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the assignment in the 4.1. Data Channel Switching Type
"Switching Types" section of the "GMPLS Signaling Parameters"
registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-
parameters:
Value Type Reference IANA has made the following assignment in the "Switching Types"
----- --------------------------- --------- section of the "GMPLS Signaling Parameters" registry.
125* Data Channel Switching Capable (DCSC) [This document]
(*) Suggested value. Value Type Reference
----- ------------------------------------ ---------
125 Data Channel Switching Capable (DCSC) [RFC6002]
It should be noted that the assigned value should be reflected in The assigned value is reflected in IANAGmplsSwitchingTypeTC of the
IANAGmplsSwitchingTypeTC at IANA-GMPLS-TC-MIB available from http://www.iana.org.
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, IANA will make the assignment in the IANA has made the following assignment in the "Class Names, Class
"Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types" section of the "RSVP Numbers, and Class Types" section of the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry.
PARAMETERS" registry located at 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:
Class Types or C-Types: Class Types or C-Types:
5* Generalized Channel_Set [This document] 5 Generalized Channel_Set [RFC6002]
(*) Suggested value.
4.3. Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object 4.3. Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object
Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the assignment in the IANA has made the following assignment in the "Class Names, Class
"Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types" section of the "RSVP Numbers, and Class Types" section of the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry.
PARAMETERS" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-
parameters.
A new class type for the existing RSVP_LABEL Object class number (16) A new class type for the existing RSVP_LABEL Object class number (16)
with the following definition: with the following definition:
Class Types or C-Types: Class Types or C-Types:
4* Generalized Channel_Set [This document] 4 Generalized Channel_Set [RFC6002]
(*) 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
security considerations. See [RFC3473] for relevant security additional security considerations. See [RFC3473] for relevant
considerations. Additionally, the existing framework for MPLS and security considerations. Additionally, the existing framework for
GMPLS security is documented in [MPLS-SEC]. MPLS and GMPLS security is documented in [RFC5920].
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", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
Srinivasan, V. and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC3471] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label [RFC3471] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC
RFC 3471, January 2003. 3471, January 2003.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label [RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling - Resource ReserVation Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473,
RFC 3473, January 2003. January 2003.
[RFC3945] Mannie, E., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label [RFC3945] Mannie, E., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004.
2004.
[RFC4202] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing [RFC4202] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing
Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005. Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005.
[RFC4203] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "OSPF Extensions in [RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005. (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005.
[RFC5307] Kompella, K. and Rekhter, Y., "IS-IS Extensions in [RFC5307] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "IS-IS Extensions
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 5307, October 2008. (GMPLS)", RFC 5307, October 2008.
6.2. Informative References 6.2. Informative References
[GMPLS-ESVCS] Berger, L., Fedyk, D., "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) [RFC4606] Mannie, E. and D. Papadimitriou, "Generalized Multi-
Support For Metro Ethernet Forum and G.8011 Ethernet Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for
Service Switching", Work in Progress, Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs. Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control", RFC 4606, August 2006.
[GMPLS-MEF-UNI] Berger, L., Fedyk, D., "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) [RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Support For Metro Ethernet Forum and G.8011 Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
User-Network Interface (UNI)", Work in Progress,
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni.
[MPLS-SEC] Fang, L., et al, "Security Framework for MPLS and [RFC6004] Berger, L. and D. Fedyk, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support
GMPLS Networks", Work in Progress, for Metro Ethernet Forum and G.8011 Ethernet Service
draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework. Switching", RFC 6004, October 2010.
[RFC4606] Mannie, E., et al "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label [RFC6005] Berger, L. and D. Fedyk, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support
Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for Synchronous Optical for Metro Ethernet Forum and G.8011 User Network Interface
Network (SONET) and Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) (UNI)", RFC 6005, October 2010.
Control", RFC 4606, August 2006.
7. Acknowledgments 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 Authors' Addresses
Lou Berger Lou Berger
LabN Consulting, L.L.C. LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Phone: +1-301-468-9228 Phone: +1-301-468-9228
Email: lberger@labn.net EMail: lberger@labn.net
Don Fedyk Don Fedyk
Alcatel-Lucent Alcatel-Lucent
Groton, MA, 01450 Groton, MA, 01450
Phone: +1-978-467-5645 Phone: +1-978-467-5645
Email: donald.fedyk@alcatel-lucent.com EMail: donald.fedyk@alcatel-lucent.com
Generated on: Thu Feb 18 19:47:04 EST 2010
 End of changes. 91 change blocks. 
241 lines changed or deleted 210 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.40. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/