draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-02.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-03.txt 
Internet Draft Lou Berger (LabN) Internet Draft Lou Berger (LabN)
Category: Standards Track Don Fedyk (Nortel) Category: Standards Track Don Fedyk (Nortel)
Expiration Date: February 8, 2009 Expiration Date: August 25, 2009
August 8, 2008 February 25, 2009
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support For Metro Ethernet Forum Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support For Metro Ethernet Forum
and G.8011 Ethernet Service Switching and G.8011 Ethernet Service Switching
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-02.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-03.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 a method for controlling two specific types This document describes a method for controlling two specific types
of Ethernet switching via Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching of Ethernet switching via Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS). This document supports the types of switching implied by (GMPLS). This document supports the types of switching implied by
the Ethernet services that have been defined in the context of the the Ethernet services that have been defined in the context of the
Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) and International Telecommunication Union Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) and International Telecommunication Union
(ITU) G.8011. Specifically, switching in support of Ethernet private (ITU) G.8011. Specifically, switching in support of Ethernet private
line service and Ethernet virtual private line service. Support for line and Ethernet virtual private line services. Support for MEF and
MEF and ITU defined parameters are also covered. Some of the ITU defined parameters are also covered.
extensions defined in this document are generic in nature and not
specific to Ethernet.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1 Introduction .............................................. 3 1 Introduction ........................................... 3
1.1 Overview .................................................. 3 1.1 Overview ............................................... 3
1.2 Conventions used in this document ......................... 5 1.2 Conventions used in this document ...................... 5
2 Common Signaling Support .................................. 5 2 Common Signaling Support ............................... 5
2.1 Ethernet Endpoint Identification .......................... 5 2.1 Ethernet Endpoint Identification ....................... 5
2.1.1 Endpoint ID TLV ........................................... 6 2.1.1 Endpoint ID TLV ........................................ 6
2.2 Connection Identification ................................. 7 2.2 Connection Identification .............................. 6
2.2.1 Procedures ................................................ 7 2.2.1 Procedures ............................................. 7
2.3 Traffic Parameters ........................................ 7 2.3 Traffic Parameters ..................................... 7
2.3.1 L2 Control Protocol TLV ................................... 8 2.3.1 L2 Control Protocol TLV ................................ 7
2.4 Bundling and VLAN Identification .......................... 9 2.4 Bundling and VLAN Identification ....................... 9
3 EPL Service ............................................... 9 3 EPL Service ............................................ 9
3.1 EPL Service Parameters .................................... 10 3.1 EPL Service Parameters ................................. 9
4 EVPL Service .............................................. 10 4 EVPL Service ........................................... 10
4.1 EVPL Generalized Label Format ............................. 11 4.1 EVPL Generalized Label Format .......................... 11
4.2 Egress VLAN ID Control and VLAN ID preservation ........... 11 4.2 Egress VLAN ID Control and VLAN ID preservation ........ 11
4.3 Single Call - Single LSP .................................. 12 4.3 Single Call - Single LSP ............................... 12
4.4 Single Call - Multiple LSPs ............................... 12 4.4 Single Call - Multiple LSPs ............................ 12
5 IANA Considerations ....................................... 12 5 IANA Considerations .................................... 12
5.1 Endpoint ID Attributes TLV ................................ 13 5.1 Endpoint ID Attributes TLV ............................. 12
5.2 Line LSP Encoding ......................................... 13 5.2 Line LSP Encoding ...................................... 13
6 Security Considerations ................................... 13 5.3 Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) Switching Type .... 13
7 References ................................................ 13 6 Security Considerations ................................ 13
7.1 Normative References ...................................... 13 7 References ............................................. 14
7.2 Informative References .................................... 14 7.1 Normative References ................................... 14
8 Acknowledgments ........................................... 15 7.2 Informative References ................................. 15
9 Author's Addresses ........................................ 15 8 Acknowledgments ........................................ 15
10 Full Copyright Statement .................................. 16 9 Author's Addresses ..................................... 16
11 Intellectual Property ..................................... 16
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
[MEF6] and [G.8011] provide parallel frameworks for defining network- [MEF6] and [G.8011] provide parallel frameworks for defining network-
oriented characteristics of Ethernet services in transport networks. oriented characteristics of Ethernet services in transport networks.
The framework discusses general Ethernet connection characteristics, The framework discusses general Ethernet connection characteristics,
Ethernet User-Network Interfaces (UNIs) and Ethernet Network-Network Ethernet User-Network Interfaces (UNIs) and Ethernet Network-Network
Interfaces (NNIs). Within this framework, [G.8011.1] defines the Interfaces (NNIs). Within this framework, [G.8011.1] defines the
Ethernet Private Line (EPL) service and [G.8011.2] defines the Ethernet Private Line (EPL) service and [G.8011.2] defines the
Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) service. [MEF6] covers both Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) service. [MEF6] covers both
skipping to change at page 3, line 50 skipping to change at page 3, line 50
[MEF6] and [G.8011]: point-to-point (P2P) and multipoint-to- [MEF6] and [G.8011]: point-to-point (P2P) and multipoint-to-
multipoint (MP2MP). [MEF6] uses the term Ethernet Line (E-line) to multipoint (MP2MP). [MEF6] uses the term Ethernet Line (E-line) to
refer to point-to-point virtual connections, and Ethernet LAN (E-LAN) refer to point-to-point virtual connections, and Ethernet LAN (E-LAN)
to refer to multipoint-to-multipoint virtual connections. [G.8011] to refer to multipoint-to-multipoint virtual connections. [G.8011]
also identifies point-to-multipoint (P2MP) as an area for "further also identifies point-to-multipoint (P2MP) as an area for "further
study." Within the context of GMPLS, support is defined for point- study." Within the context of GMPLS, support is defined for point-
to-point unidirectional and bidirectional TE Label Switched Paths to-point unidirectional and bidirectional TE Label Switched Paths
(LSPs), see [RFC3473], and unidirectional point-to-multipoint TE (LSPs), see [RFC3473], and unidirectional point-to-multipoint TE
LSPs, see [RFC4875]. LSPs, see [RFC4875].
Support for P2P and MP2MP service is required by [G.8011] and Support for P2P and MP2MP services is required by [G.8011] and
[MEF11]. Note that while [MEF11] requires MP2MP, [G.8011.1] and [MEF11]. Note that while [MEF11] requires MP2MP, [G.8011.1] and
[G.8011.2] only require P2P. There is a clear correspondence between [G.8011.2] only require P2P. There is a clear correspondence between
E-Line/P2P service and GMPLS P2P TE LSPs, and support for such LSPs E-Line/P2P service and GMPLS P2P TE LSPs, and support for such LSPs
are included in the scope of this document. There is no such clear are included in the scope of this document. There is no such clear
correspondence between E-LAN/MP2MP service and GMPLS TE LSPs. correspondence between E-LAN/MP2MP service and GMPLS TE LSPs.
Although it is possible to emulate the service using multiple P2P or Although it is possible to emulate the service using multiple P2P or
P2MP TE LSPs. The definition of support for MP2MP service is left P2MP TE LSPs. The definition of support for MP2MP service is left
for future study and is not addressed in this document. for future study and is not addressed in this document.
[MEF11] defines multiple types of control for UNI Ethernet services. [MEF11] defines multiple types of control for UNI Ethernet services.
skipping to change at page 5, line 18 skipping to change at page 5, line 18
"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. Common Signaling Support 2. Common Signaling Support
This section describes the common mechanisms for supporting GMPLS This section describes the common mechanisms for supporting GMPLS
signaled control of LSPs that provide Ethernet connections as defined signaled control of LSPs that provide Ethernet connections as defined
in [MEF11], [G.8011.1] and [G.8011.2]. in [MEF11], [G.8011.1] and [G.8011.2].
Except as specifically modified in this document, the procedures Except as specifically modified in this document, the procedures
related to the processing of RSVP objects is not modified by this related to the processing of RSVP objects are not modified by this
document. The relevant procedures in existing documents, such as document. The relevant procedures in existing documents, such as
[RFC3473], MUST be followed in all cases not explicitly described in [RFC3473], MUST be followed in all cases not explicitly described in
this document. this document.
2.1. Ethernet Endpoint Identification 2.1. Ethernet Endpoint Identification
Ethernet endpoint identifiers, as they are defined in [G.8011] and Ethernet endpoint identifiers, as they are defined in [G.8011] and
[MEF10.1], differ significantly from the identifiers used by GMPLS. [MEF10.1], differ significantly from the identifiers used by GMPLS.
Specifically, the Ethernet endpoint identifiers are character based Specifically, the Ethernet endpoint identifiers are character based
as apposed to the GMPLS norm of being IP address based. as apposed to the GMPLS norm of being IP address based.
The approach taken by this document to address this disparity The approach taken by this document to address this disparity
leverages the solution used for connection identification, see leverages the solution used for connection identification, see
Section 2.2 and [RFC4974], and a new CALL_ATTRIBUTES TLV defined in Section 2.2 and [RFC4974], and a new CALL_ATTRIBUTES TLV defined in
this document. The solution makes use of the [RFC4974] short call this document. The solution makes use of the [RFC4974] short call
ID, and supports the Ethernet endpoint identifier much like [RFC4974] ID, and supports the Ethernet endpoint identifier much like [RFC4974]
supports the long call ID. That is, the SENDER_TEMPLATE and SESSION supports the long call ID. That is, the SENDER_TEMPLATE and SESSION
objects carry IP addresses and a short call ID, and long identifiers 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 are carried in the CALL_ATTRIBUTES object. As with the long call ID,
Ethernet endpoint identifier is typically only relevant at the the Ethernet endpoint identifier is typically only relevant at the
ingress and egress nodes. ingress and egress nodes.
As defined below, the Ethernet endpoint identifier is carried in the As defined below, the Ethernet endpoint identifier is carried in the
CALL_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 Endpoint ID TLV. The processing of the Endpoint ID TLV parallels
the processing of the long call ID in [RFC4974]. This processing the processing of the long call ID in [RFC4974]. This processing
requires the inclusion of the CALL_ATTRIBUTES object in a Notify requires the inclusion of the CALL_ATTRIBUTES object in a Notify
message. message.
2.1.1. Endpoint ID TLV 2.1.1. Endpoint ID TLV
skipping to change at page 6, line 40 skipping to change at page 6, line 40
The use of the Endpoint ID TLV is required during call management. The use of the Endpoint ID TLV is required during call management.
When a call is established or torn down per [RFC4974], a When a call is established or torn down per [RFC4974], a
CALL_ATTRIBUTES object containing an Endpoint ID TLV MUST be included CALL_ATTRIBUTES object containing an Endpoint ID TLV MUST be included
in the Notify message along with the Long Call ID. in the Notify message along with the Long Call ID.
Short Call ID processing, including those procedures related to call Short Call ID processing, including those procedures related to call
and connection processing, is not modified by this document and MUST and connection processing, is not modified by this document and MUST
proceed according to [RFC4974]. proceed according to [RFC4974].
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
[4420BIS].
Transit nodes supporting this document MUST propagate the Endpoint ID
TLV without modification.
2.2. Connection Identification 2.2. Connection Identification
Signaling for Ethernet connections follows the procedures defined in Signaling for Ethernet connections follows the procedures defined in
[RFC4974]. In particular the Call related mechanisms are reused to [RFC4974]. In particular the Call related mechanisms are reused to
support endpoint identification. In the context of Ethernet support endpoint identification. In the context of Ethernet
connections, a call only exists when one or more LSPs (connections in connections, a call only is only established when one or more LSPs
[RFC4974] terms) are present. An LSP will always be established (connections in [RFC4974] terms) are needed. An LSP will always be
within the context of a call and, typically, only one LSP will be established within the context of a call and, typically, only one LSP
used per call. See Section 4.4 for the case where more than one LSP will be used per call. See Section 4.4 for the case where more than
may exist within a call. one LSP may exist within a call.
2.2.1. Procedures 2.2.1. Procedures
Any node that supports Ethernet connections MUST be able to accept Any node that supports Ethernet connections MUST be able to accept
and process call setups per [RFC4974]. Ethernet connections and process call setups per [RFC4974]. Ethernet connections
established according to this document MUST treat the Ethernet established according to this document MUST treat the Ethernet
(virtual) connection identifier as the long "Call identifier (ID)", (virtual) connection identifier as the long "Call identifier (ID)",
described in [RFC4974]. The short Call ID MUST be used as described described in [RFC4974]. The short Call ID MUST be used as described
in [RFC4974]. Use of the LINK_CAPABILITY object is OPTIONAL. Both in [RFC4974]. Use of the LINK_CAPABILITY object is OPTIONAL. Both
network-initiated and user-initiated Calls MUST be supported. network-initiated and user-initiated Calls MUST be supported.
skipping to change at page 8, line 25 skipping to change at page 8, line 16
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type=3 | Length=8 | | Type=3 | Length=8 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IL2CP | EL2CP | Reserved | | IL2CP | EL2CP | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
See [ETH-TRAFFIC] for a description of the Type and Length fields. 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 Per [ETH-TRAFFIC], the Type field MUST be set to three (3), and
Length field MUST be set to eight (8) for the L2CP TLV. the Length field MUST be set to eight (8) for the L2CP TLV.
Ingress Layer 2 Control Processing (IL2CP): 4 bits Ingress Layer 2 Control Processing (IL2CP): 4 bits
This field controls processing of Layer 2 Control Protocols This field controls processing of Layer 2 Control Protocols
on a receiving interface. Valid usage is service specific, on a receiving interface. Valid usage is service specific,
see [MEF10.1], [8011.1] and [8011.2]. see [MEF10.1], [8011.1] and [8011.2].
Permitted values are: Permitted values are:
Value Description Reference Value Description Reference
skipping to change at page 9, line 34 skipping to change at page 9, line 23
2.4. Bundling and VLAN Identification 2.4. Bundling and VLAN Identification
The control of bundling and listing of VLAN identifiers is only The control of bundling and listing of VLAN identifiers is only
supported for EVPL services. EVPL service specific details are supported for EVPL services. EVPL service specific details are
provided in Section 4. provided in Section 4.
3. EPL Service 3. EPL Service
Both [MEF6] and [G.8011.1] define an Ethernet Private Line (EPL) Both [MEF6] and [G.8011.1] define an Ethernet Private Line (EPL)
services. In the words of [G.8011.1], EPL services carry "Ethernet service. In the words of [G.8011.1], EPL services carry "Ethernet
characteristic information over dedicated bandwidth, point-to-point characteristic information over dedicated bandwidth, point-to-point
connections, provided by SDH, ATM, MPLS, PDH, ETY or OTH server layer connections, provided by SDH, ATM, MPLS, PDH, ETY or OTH server layer
networks." [G.8011.1] defines two types of Ethernet Private Line networks." [G.8011.1] defines two types of Ethernet Private Line
(EPL) services. Both types present a service where all data (EPL) services. Both types present a service where all data
presented on a port is transported to the corresponding connect port. presented on a port is transported to the corresponding connect port.
The types differ in that EPL type 1 service operates at the MAC frame The types differ in that EPL type 1 service operates at the MAC frame
layer, while EPL type 2 service operates at the line (e.g., 8B/10B) layer, while EPL type 2 service operates at the line (e.g., 8B/10B)
encoding layer. [MEF6] only defines one type of EPL service, and it encoding layer. [MEF6] only defines one type of EPL service, and it
matches [G.8011.1] EPL type 1 service. Signaling for LSPs that matches [G.8011.1] EPL type 1 service. Signaling for LSPs that
support both types of EPL services are detailed below. support both types of EPL services are detailed below.
3.1. EPL Service Parameters 3.1. EPL Service Parameters
Signaling for the EPL service types only differ in the LSP Encoding Signaling for the EPL service types only differ in the LSP Encoding
Type used. The LSP Encoding Type used for each are: Type used. The LSP Encoding Type used for each are:
EPL Service LSP Encoding Type EPL Service LSP Encoding Type
----------- ----------------- ----------- -----------------
Type 1/MEF Ethernet (2) [RFC3471] Type 1/MEF Ethernet (2) [RFC3471]
Type 2 Line (e.g., 8B/10B) (TBA by IANA) Type 2 Line (e.g., 8B/10B) [This document] (TBA by IANA)
The other LSP parameters specific to EPL Service are: The other LSP parameters specific to EPL Service are:
Parameter Value Parameter Value
-------------- ----- -------------- -----
Switching Type DCSC [GMPLS-EXT] Switching Type DCSC [GMPLS-EXT]
G-PID Ethernet (33) [RFC3471] G-PID Ethernet (33) [RFC3471]
The parameters defined in this section MUST be used when establishing The parameters defined in this section MUST be used when establishing
and controlling LSPs that provide EPL service type Ethernet and controlling LSPs that provide EPL service type Ethernet
switching. The procedures defined in Section 2 and the other switching. The procedures defined in Section 2 and the other
skipping to change at page 10, line 45 skipping to change at page 10, line 34
or unbundled. Independent of the different forms, LSPs supporting or unbundled. Independent of the different forms, LSPs supporting
EVPL Ethernet type switching are signaled using the same mechanisms EVPL Ethernet type switching are signaled using the same mechanisms
to communicate the one or more VLAN IDs associated with a particular to communicate the one or more VLAN IDs associated with a particular
LSP (Ethernet connection). LSP (Ethernet connection).
The relevant [RFC3471] parameter values that MUST be used for EVPL The relevant [RFC3471] parameter values that MUST be used for EVPL
connections are: connections are:
Parameter Value Parameter Value
-------------- ----- -------------- -----
Switching Type TBD [NOTE: under discussion] Switching Type EVPL [This document] (TBA by IANA)
LSP Encoding Type Ethernet (2) LSP Encoding Type Ethernet (2)
G-PID Ethernet (33) G-PID Ethernet (33)
As with EPL, the procedures defined in Section 2 and the other As with EPL, the procedures defined in Section 2 and the other
procedures defined in [RFC3473] for the establishment and management procedures defined in [RFC3473] for the establishment and management
of bidirectional LSPs MUST be followed when establishing and of bidirectional LSPs MUST be followed when establishing and
controlling LSPs that provide EVPL service type Ethernet switching. controlling LSPs that provide EVPL service type Ethernet switching.
LSPs that provide EVPL service type Ethernet switching MUST use the LSPs that provide EVPL service type Ethernet switching MUST use the
EVPL Generalized Label Format per Section 4.1, and the Generalized EVPL Generalized Label Format per Section 4.1, and the Generalized
Channel_Set Label Objects per [GMPLS-EXT]. A notable implication of Channel_Set Label Objects per [GMPLS-EXT]. A notable implication of
bundled EVPL services and carrying multiple VLAN IDs is that a Path bundled EVPL services and carrying multiple VLAN IDs is that a Path
message may grow to be larger than a single (fragmented or non- message may grow to be larger than a single (fragmented or non-
fragmented) IP packet. The basic approach to solving this is to fragmented) IP packet. The basic approach to solving this is to
allow for multiple LSPs which are associated with a single call, see allow for multiple LSPs which are associated with a single call, see
Section 2.2. The specifics of this approach are describe below in Section 2.2. The specifics of this approach are describe below in
Section 4.4. Section 4.4.
4.1. EVPL Generalized Label Format 4.1. EVPL Generalized Label Format
Bundled EVPL services requires the use of a service specific label, Bundled EVPL services require the use of a service specific label,
called the EVPL Generalized Label. For consistency, Non-bundled EVPL called the EVPL Generalized Label. For consistency, Non-bundled EVPL
services also use the same label. services also use the same label.
The format for the Generalized Label (Label Type value 2) used with The format for the Generalized Label (Label Type value 2) used with
EVPL services is: EVPL services is:
0 1 0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Rsvd | VLAN ID | | Rsvd | VLAN ID |
skipping to change at page 11, line 44 skipping to change at page 11, line 33
This field is reserved. It MUST be set to zero on transmission This field is reserved. It MUST be set to zero on transmission
and MUST be ignored on receipt. This field SHOULD be passed and MUST be ignored on receipt. This field SHOULD be passed
unmodified by transit nodes. unmodified by transit nodes.
VLAN ID: 12 bits VLAN ID: 12 bits
A VLAN identifier. A VLAN identifier.
4.2. Egress VLAN ID Control and VLAN ID preservation 4.2. Egress VLAN ID Control and VLAN ID preservation
Per [MEF6], the mapping of the single VLAN ID used at the incoming When an EVPL service does not support both bundling and VLAN ID
interface of the ingress to a different VLAN ID at the outgoing preservation, [MEF6] allows VLAN ID mapping. In particular, the
interface at the egress UNI is allowed for EVPL services that do not single VLAN ID used at the incoming interface of the ingress may be
support either bundling and VLAN ID preservation. Such a mapping mapped to a different VLAN ID at the outgoing interface at the egress
MUST be requested and signaled based on the explicit label control UNI. Such mapping MUST be requested and signaled based on the
mechanism defined in [RFC3473] and clarified in [RFC4003]. explicit label control mechanism defined in [RFC3473] and clarified
in [RFC4003].
When the explicit label control mechanism is not used, VLAN IDs MUST When the explicit label control mechanism is not used, VLAN IDs MUST
be preserved, i.e., not modified, across an LSP. be preserved, i.e., not modified, across an LSP.
4.3. Single Call - Single LSP 4.3. Single Call - Single LSP
For simplicity in management, a single LSP SHOULD be used for each For simplicity in management, a single LSP SHOULD be used for each
EVPL type LSP whose Path and Resv messages fit within a single EVPL type LSP whose Path and Resv messages fit within a single
unfragmented IP packet. This allows the reuse of all standard LSP unfragmented IP packet. This allows the reuse of all standard LSP
modification procedures. Of particular note is the modification of modification procedures. Of particular note is the modification of
skipping to change at page 13, line 31 skipping to change at page 13, line 24
the "LSP Encoding Types" section of the "GMPLS Signaling Parameters" the "LSP Encoding 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
----- --------------------------- --------- ----- --------------------------- ---------
14* Line (e.g., 8B/10B) [This document] 14* Line (e.g., 8B/10B) [This document]
(*) Suggested value. (*) Suggested value.
5.3. Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) 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
----- --------------------------- ---------
30* Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) [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.
6. Security Considerations 6. 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.
7. References 7. References
7.1. Normative References 7.1. Normative References
[ETH-TRAFFIC] Papadimitriou, D., "Ethernet Traffic Parameters," [ETH-TRAFFIC] Papadimitriou, D., "Ethernet Traffic Parameters,"
draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-traffic-parameters-05.txt, draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-traffic-parameters-06.txt,
Work in progress, July 12, 2008. Work in progress, October 31, 2008.
[GMPLS-EXT] Berger, L., Papadimitriou, P., Fedyk, D., [GMPLS-EXT] Berger, L., Papadimitriou, P., Fedyk, D.,
"Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Data Channel Switching "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Data Channel Switching
Capable (DCSC) and Channel Set Label Extensions", Capable (DCSC) and Channel Set Label Extensions",
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-00.txt, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-00.txt,
Work in Progress, August 2008. Work in Progress, August 2008.
[GMPLS-MRN] Papadimitriou, D. et al, "Generalized Multi-Protocol [GMPLS-MRN] Papadimitriou, D. et al, "Generalized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (GMPLS) Protocol Extensions for Label Switching (GMPLS) Protocol Extensions for
Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks (MLN/MRN)", Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks (MLN/MRN)",
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-extensions-02.txt, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-extensions-03.txt,
Work in progress, July 2008. Work in progress, October 2008.
[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
to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC3471] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label [RFC3471] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description",
RFC 3471, January 2003. RFC 3471, January 2003.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label [RFC3473] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling - Resource ReserVation Switching (GMPLS) Signaling - Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions",
RFC 3473, January 2003. RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC4003] Berger, L., "GMPLS Signaling Procedure for Egress [RFC4003] Berger, L., "GMPLS Signaling Procedure for Egress
Control", RFC 4003, February 2005. Control", RFC 4003, February 2005.
[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 [RFC4974] Papadimitriou, D., Farrel, A. "Generalized MPLS
(GMPLS) RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in support of Calls", (GMPLS) RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in support of Calls",
RFC 4974, August 2007. RFC 4974, August 2007.
7.2. Informative References 7.2. Informative References
[G.8011] ITU-T G.8011/Y.1307, "Ethernet over Transport [G.8011] ITU-T G.8011/Y.1307, "Ethernet over Transport
Ethernet services framework", August 2004. Ethernet services framework", August 2004.
[G.8011.1] ITU-T G.G.8011.1/Y.1307.1, "Ethernet private [G.8011.1] ITU-T G.G.8011.1/Y.1307.1, "Ethernet private
skipping to change at page 16, line 4 skipping to change at page 16, line 11
The authors would like to thank Evelyne Roch, Stephen Shew, and Yoav The authors would like to thank Evelyne Roch, Stephen Shew, and Yoav
Cohen for their valuable comments. Cohen for their valuable comments.
9. Author's Addresses 9. Author's 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
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
10. Full Copyright Statement Generated on: Wed Feb 25 20:00:02 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.
11. 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 09:53:58 EDT 2008
 End of changes. 27 change blocks. 
81 lines changed or deleted 92 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/