--- 1/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-00.txt 2008-07-14 19:12:25.000000000 +0200 +++ 2/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-01.txt 2008-07-14 19:12:25.000000000 +0200 @@ -1,21 +1,21 @@ Internet Draft Lou Berger (LabN) Updates: 3471, 3473, 3945, 4202 Category: Standards Track Don Fedyk (Nortel) -Expiration Date: October 14, 2008 +Expiration Date: January 14, 2009 - April 14, 2008 + July 14, 2008 Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support For Metro Ethernet Forum and G.8011 Ethernet Service Switching - draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-00.txt + draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-01.txt Status of this Memo 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. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that @@ -26,21 +26,21 @@ 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 October 14, 2008. + This Internet-Draft will expire on January 14, 2009. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). Abstract This document describes a method for controlling two specific types of Ethernet switching via Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS). This document supports the types of switching required to @@ -66,33 +66,32 @@ 2.3.1 L2 Control Protocol TLV ................................... 8 2.4 Bundling and VLAN Identification .......................... 9 3 EPL Service ............................................... 9 3.1 EPL Service Parameters .................................... 10 4 EVPL Service .............................................. 10 4.1 EVPL Generalized Label Format ............................. 11 4.2 Egress VLAN ID Control and VLAN ID preservation ........... 11 4.3 Single Call - Single LSP .................................. 12 4.4 Single Call - Multiple LSPs ............................... 12 5 Generic GMPLS Extensions .................................. 12 - 5.1 Notify Message Format ..................................... 13 - 5.2 Data Channel Switching .................................... 13 - 5.3 Generalized Channel_Set Label Related Formats ............. 14 - 5.3.1 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST Object .............. 14 - 5.3.2 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object ...................... 14 - 5.3.3 Other Label related Objects ............................... 17 + 5.1 Data Channel Switching .................................... 13 + 5.2 Generalized Channel_Set Label Related Formats ............. 13 + 5.2.1 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST Object .............. 13 + 5.2.2 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object ...................... 14 + 5.2.3 Other Label related Objects ............................... 16 6 IANA Considerations ....................................... 17 6.1 Endpoint ID Attributes TLV ................................ 17 6.2 Line LSP Encoding ......................................... 17 - 6.3 Data Channel Switching Type ............................... 18 + 6.3 Data Channel Switching Type ............................... 17 6.4 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST Object .............. 18 6.5 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object ...................... 18 - 7 Security Considerations ................................... 19 + 7 Security Considerations ................................... 18 8 References ................................................ 19 8.1 Normative References ...................................... 19 8.2 Informative References .................................... 20 9 Acknowledgments ........................................... 21 10 Author's Addresses ........................................ 21 11 Full Copyright Statement .................................. 21 12 Intellectual Property ..................................... 22 1. Introduction @@ -109,21 +108,21 @@ [MEF6] and [G.8011] are focused on service interfaces and not the underlying technology used to support the service. For example, [G.8011] refers to the defined services being transported over one of several possible "server layers". This document focuses on the types of switching that may directly support these services and provides a method for GMPLS based control of such switching technologies. This document defines the GMPLS extensions needed to support such switching, but does not define the UNI or External NNI (E-NNI) reference points. See [GMPLS-MEF-UNI] for a description of the UNI reference point. This document makes use of the traffic parameters - defined in [MEF-TRAFFIC]. + defined in [ETH-TRAFFIC]. Some of the extensions defined in this document are generic in nature and not specific to Ethernet, or [MEF6] and [G.8011] related switching. [AUTHORS' NOTE: These extensions are presented in a separate section and may be split into their own document as this work progresses.] 1.1. Overview This document uses a largely common approach to supporting the @@ -174,21 +173,21 @@ per connection. Other attributes are specific to a particular connection, or must be consistent across the connection. The approach taken in this document to communicate these attributes is to exclude the static class of attributes from signaling. This class of attributes will not be explicitly discussed in this document. The other class of attributes are communicated via signaling and will be reviewed in the sections below. The major attributes that will be supported in signaling include: - Endpoint identifiers - Connection identifiers - - Traffic parameters (see [MEF-TRAFFIC]) + - Traffic parameters (see [ETH-TRAFFIC]) - Bundling / VLAN IDs map (EVPL only) - VLAN ID Preservation (EVPL only) Common procedures used to support Ethernet LSPs are described in Section 2 of this document. Procedures related to signaling switching in support of EPL services are described in Section 3. Procedures related to signaling switching in support of EVPL services are described in Section 4. Section 5 covers the generic GMPLS extensions proposed by this document. @@ -213,78 +212,75 @@ 2.1. Ethernet Endpoint Identification Ethernet endpoint identifiers, as they are defined in [G.8011] and [MEF10.1], differ significantly from the identifiers used by GMPLS. Specifically, the Ethernet endpoint identifiers are character based as apposed to the GMPLS norm of being IP address based. The approach taken by this document to address this disparity leverages the solution used for connection identification, see - Section 2.2 and [RFC4974], and the LSP attributes object, see - [RFC4420]. The solution makes use of the [RFC4974] short call ID, - and supports the Ethernet endpoint identifier much like [RFC4974] + Section 2.2 and [RFC4974], and a new CALL_ATTRIBUTES TLV defined in + this document. The solution makes use of the [RFC4974] short call + ID, and supports the Ethernet endpoint identifier much like [RFC4974] supports the long call ID. That is, the SENDER_TEMPLATE and SESSION objects carry IP addresses and a short call ID, and long identifiers are carried in the attributes object. As with the long call ID, the Ethernet endpoint identifier is typically only relevant at the ingress and egress nodes. As defined below, the Ethernet endpoint identifier is carried in the - LSP_ATTRIBUTES object in a new TLV. The new TLV is referred to as + CALL_ATTRIBUTES object in a new TLV. The new TLV is referred to as the Endpoint ID TLV. The processing of the Endpoint ID TLV parallels the processing of the long call ID in [RFC4974]. This processing - requires the inclusion of the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object in a Notify - message, see Section 5.1. + requires the inclusion of the CALL_ATTRIBUTES object in a Notify + message. 2.1.1. Endpoint ID TLV The Endpoint ID TLV follows the Attributes TLV format defined in - [RFC4420]. The Endpoint ID TLV has uses the Type value of TBA (by - IANA). - - The TLV has the following format: + [GMPLS-MRN]. The Endpoint ID TLV has the following format: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type (TBA) | Length (variable) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Endpoint ID | | ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - See [RFC4420] for a description of the Type and Length fields. - Note that per [RFC4420], the Length field is set to the unpadded - length of the Endpoint ID field. + Type and Length fields are defined in [GMPLS-MRN]. Note that as + defined in [GMPLS-MRN], the Length field is set to length of the + whole TLV including the Type, Length and Endpoint ID fields. Endpoint ID - The Endpoint ID field is a variable length field that carries - an endpoint identifier, see [MEF10.1] and [G.8011]. This field - MUST be null padded as defined in [RFC4420]. + The Endpoint ID field is a variable size field that carries an + endpoint identifier, see [MEF10.1] and [G.8011]. This field + MUST be null padded as defined in [GMPLS-MRN]. 2.1.1.1. Procedures The use of the Endpoint ID TLV is required during call management. - When a call is established or torn down per [RFC4974], an - LSP_ATTRIBUTES object containing an Endpoint ID TLV MUST be included + When a call is established or torn down per [RFC4974], a + CALL_ATTRIBUTES object containing an Endpoint ID TLV MUST be included in the Notify message along with the Long Call ID. Short Call ID processing, including those procedures related to call and connection processing, is not modified by this document and MUST proceed according to [RFC4974]. - An LSP_ATTRIBUTES object containing an Endpoint ID TLV MAY be + A CALL_ATTRIBUTES object containing an Endpoint ID TLV MAY be included in the signaling messages of an LSP (connection) associated with an established call. Such objects are processed according to - [RFC4420]. + [4420BIS]. Transit nodes supporting this document MUST propagate the Endpoint ID TLV without modification. 2.2. Connection Identification Signaling for Ethernet connections follows the procedures defined in [RFC4974]. In particular the Call related mechanisms are reused to support endpoint identification. In the context of Ethernet connections, a call only exists when one or more LSPs (connections in @@ -307,53 +303,54 @@ establish a Call per the procedures defined in [RFC4974]. LSP management, including removal and addition, then follows [RFC4974]. As stated in [RFC4974], once a Call is established the initiator SHOULD establish at least one Ethernet LSP. Also, when the last LSP associated with a Call is removed, the Call SHOULD be torn down per the procedures in [RFC4974]. 2.3. Traffic Parameters Several types of service attributes are carried in the traffic - parameters defined in [MEF-TRAFFIC]. These parameters are carried in - the FLOWSPEC and TSPEC objects as discussed in [MEF-TRAFFIC]. The + parameters defined in [ETH-TRAFFIC]. These parameters are carried in + the FLOWSPEC and TSPEC objects as discussed in [ETH-TRAFFIC]. The service attributes that are carried are: - Bandwidth Profile - VLAN CoS Preservation - Layer Two (L2) Control Protocol Processing (see Section 2.3.1) Ethernet connections established according to this document MUST use - the traffic parameters defined in [MEF-TRAFFIC] in the FLOWSPEC and - TSPEC objects. + the traffic parameters defined in [ETH-TRAFFIC] in the FLOWSPEC and + TSPEC objects. Additionally, the Switching Granularity field of the + Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object MUST be set to zero (0). 2.3.1. L2 Control Protocol TLV [MEF10.1], [8011.1] and [8011.2] define service attributes that impact the layer two (L2) control protocol processing at the ingress - and egress. [MEF-TRAFFIC] does not define support for these service + and egress. [ETH-TRAFFIC] does not define support for these service attributes, but does allow the attributes to be carried in a TLV. This section defines the L2 Control Protocol (L2CP) TLV to carry the L2 control protocol processing related service attributes. The format of the L2 Control Protocol (L2CP) TLV is as follows: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | Type=2 | Length=4 | + | Type=3 | Length=8 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IL2CP | EL2CP | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - See [MEF-TRAFFIC] for a description of the Type and Length fields. - Per [MEF-TRAFFIC], the Type field MUST be set to two (2), and the - Length field MUST be set to four (4) for the L2CP TLV. + See [ETH-TRAFFIC] for a description of the Type and Length fields. + Per [ETH-TRAFFIC], the Type field MUST be set to two (2), and the + Length field MUST be set to eight (8) for the L2CP TLV. Ingress Layer 2 Control Processing (IL2CP): 4 bits This field controls processing of Layer 2 Control Protocols on a receiving interface. Valid usage is service specific, see [MEF10.1], [8011.1] and [8011.2]. Permitted values are: Value Description Reference @@ -381,21 +378,21 @@ 3 None [8011.1] and [8011.2] 4 Reserved Reserved: 24 bits This field is reserved. It MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt. This field SHOULD be passed unmodified by transit nodes. Ethernet connections established according to this document MUST - include the L2CP TLV in the [MEF-TRAFFIC] traffic parameters carried + include the L2CP TLV in the [ETH-TRAFFIC] traffic parameters carried in the FLOWSPEC and TSPEC objects. 2.4. Bundling and VLAN Identification The control of bundling and listing of VLAN identifiers is only supported for EVPL services. EVPL service specific details are provided in Section 4. 3. EPL Service @@ -540,44 +537,21 @@ 5. Generic GMPLS Extensions This section presents extensions to GMPLS that, while motivated by EPL and EVPL service, are generic in nature and may be useful to any switching technology controlled via GMPLS. [AUTHORS' NOTE: The extensions presented in this section and may be split into one or more independent documents as this work progresses.] -5.1. Notify Message Format - - The Notify message format is extended based on the format defined in - [RFC4974] to allow for the use of the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object as - defined in this document. The inclusion of an LSP_ATTRIBUTES object - in Notify messages is optional. When present, the LSP_ATTRIBUTES - object SHOULD follow the SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object. - - The format of the Notify Message is updated as follows: - - ::= see [RFC4974] - - ::= [ ] - [ ...] - [ ] - [ ] - [ ] - [ | ] - - ::= see [RFC3473] - - ::= see [RFC3473] - -5.2. Data Channel Switching +5.1. 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 @@ -593,69 +567,69 @@ 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. -5.3. Generalized Channel_Set Label Related Formats +5.2. 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. -5.3.1. Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST Object +5.2.1. 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. -5.3.2. Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object +5.2.2. Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object The Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object communicates one or more labels, all of which can be used equivalently in the data path associated with a single LSP. The format of the Generalized 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 set may be represented in a single object rather than the multiple objects required by the [RFC3473] LABEL_SET object. The object MUST be used on LSPs that use the Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST object. The object MUST be processed per [RFC3473]. Make-before- break procedures, see [RFC3209], SHOULD be used when modifying the Channel_Set LABEL object. The format of the Generalized Channel_Set LABEL object is: + o eneralized Channel_Set LABEL object: Class = 16, C-Type = TBA (By + IANA) + 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | Length | Class-Num (16)| C-Type (TBA) | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Channel_Set Sub-Object 1 | | ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ : : : : : : +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Channel_Set Sub-Object N | | ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - The Channel_Set Sub-Object size is measured in bytes and MUST always be a multiple of 4, and at least 4, and has the following format: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Action | Num Subchannels | Label Type | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Subchannel 1 | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ @@ -717,49 +691,48 @@ The Padding field MUST be included when the number of bits represented in all the Subchannel fields included in a Generalized Channel_Set Sub-Object result in the Sub-Object not being 32 bit aligned. When present, the Padding field MUST have a length that results in the Sub-Object being 32 bit aligned. When present, the Padding field MUST be set to a zero (0) value on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt. These bits SHOULD be passed through unmodified by transit nodes. -5.3.3. Other Label related Objects +5.2.3. Other Label related Objects The previous section introduces a new LABEL object. As such the 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 6. IANA Considerations IANA is requested to administer assignment of new values for namespaces defined in this document and reviewed in this section. 6.1. Endpoint ID Attributes TLV Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the assignment in - the "Attributes TLV Space" section of the "RSVP TE Parameters" + the "CALL_ATTRIBUTES TLV Space" section of the "RSVP TE Parameters" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te- parameters: - Allowed on Allowed on - Type Name LSP_ATTRIBUTES LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Reference - ---- ----------- -------------- ----------------------- --------- - 2* Endpoint ID Yes Yes [This document] + Type Name Reference + ---- ----------- --------- + 2* Endpoint ID [This document] (*) Suggested value. 6.2. Line LSP Encoding Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the assignment in the "LSP Encoding Types" section of the "GMPLS Signaling Parameters" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig- parameters: @@ -820,24 +793,29 @@ 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. 8. References 8.1. Normative References - [MEF-TRAFFIC] Papadimitriou, D., "MEF Ethernet Traffic - Parameters," - draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-traffic-parameters-03.txt, - Work in progress, November 2007. + [ETH-TRAFFIC] Papadimitriou, D., "Ethernet Traffic Parameters," + draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-traffic-parameters-05.txt, + Work in progress, July 12, 2008. + + [GMPLS-MRN] Papadimitriou, D. et al, "Generalized Multi-Protocol + Label Switching (GMPLS) Protocol Extensions for + Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks (MLN/MRN)", + draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-extensions-02.txt, + Work in progress, July 2008. [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 to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. [RFC3471] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", @@ -852,25 +830,26 @@ Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004. [RFC4003] Berger, L., "GMPLS Signaling Procedure for Egress Control", RFC 4003, February 2005. [RFC4202] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005. - [RFC4420] Farrel, A., et al. "Encoding of Attributes for - Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path - (LSP) Establishment Using Resource ReserVation - Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 4420, - February 2006. + [4420BIS] Farrel, A., et al. "Encoding of Attributes for + Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched + Path (LSP) Establishment Using Resource ReserVation + Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)", + draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc4420bis-03.txt, + Work in progress, May 27, 2008, [RFC4974] Papadimitriou, D., Farrel, A. "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in support of Calls", RFC 4974, August 2007. 8.2. Informative References [G.8011] ITU-T G.8011/Y.1307, "Ethernet over Transport Ethernet services framework", August 2004. @@ -965,11 +944,11 @@ 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: Mon Apr 14 18:11:06 EDT 2008 +Generated on: Mon Jul 14 12:19:42 EDT 2008