--- 1/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-02.txt 2009-02-26 04:12:05.000000000 +0100 +++ 2/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-03.txt 2009-02-26 04:12:05.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,94 +1,102 @@ Internet Draft Lou Berger (LabN) 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 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 + This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the + provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. + By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes - aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. + aware will be disclosed, in accordance with BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html - This Internet-Draft will expire on February 8, 2009. + This Internet-Draft will expire on August 25, 2009. -Copyright Notice +Copyright and License Notice - Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). + Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the + document authors. All rights reserved. + + This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal + Provisions Relating to IETF Documents + (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of + publication of this document. Please review these documents + carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect + to this document. Abstract This document describes a method for controlling two specific types of Ethernet switching via Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS). This document supports the types of switching implied by the Ethernet services that have been defined in the context of the Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) and International Telecommunication Union (ITU) G.8011. Specifically, switching in support of Ethernet private - line service and Ethernet virtual private line service. Support for - MEF and ITU defined parameters are also covered. Some of the - extensions defined in this document are generic in nature and not - specific to Ethernet. + line and Ethernet virtual private line services. Support for MEF and + ITU defined parameters are also covered. Table of Contents - 1 Introduction .............................................. 3 - 1.1 Overview .................................................. 3 - 1.2 Conventions used in this document ......................... 5 - 2 Common Signaling Support .................................. 5 - 2.1 Ethernet Endpoint Identification .......................... 5 - 2.1.1 Endpoint ID TLV ........................................... 6 - 2.2 Connection Identification ................................. 7 - 2.2.1 Procedures ................................................ 7 - 2.3 Traffic Parameters ........................................ 7 - 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 IANA Considerations ....................................... 12 - 5.1 Endpoint ID Attributes TLV ................................ 13 - 5.2 Line LSP Encoding ......................................... 13 - 6 Security Considerations ................................... 13 - 7 References ................................................ 13 - 7.1 Normative References ...................................... 13 - 7.2 Informative References .................................... 14 - 8 Acknowledgments ........................................... 15 - 9 Author's Addresses ........................................ 15 -10 Full Copyright Statement .................................. 16 -11 Intellectual Property ..................................... 16 + 1 Introduction ........................................... 3 + 1.1 Overview ............................................... 3 + 1.2 Conventions used in this document ...................... 5 + 2 Common Signaling Support ............................... 5 + 2.1 Ethernet Endpoint Identification ....................... 5 + 2.1.1 Endpoint ID TLV ........................................ 6 + 2.2 Connection Identification .............................. 6 + 2.2.1 Procedures ............................................. 7 + 2.3 Traffic Parameters ..................................... 7 + 2.3.1 L2 Control Protocol TLV ................................ 7 + 2.4 Bundling and VLAN Identification ....................... 9 + 3 EPL Service ............................................ 9 + 3.1 EPL Service Parameters ................................. 9 + 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 IANA Considerations .................................... 12 + 5.1 Endpoint ID Attributes TLV ............................. 12 + 5.2 Line LSP Encoding ...................................... 13 + 5.3 Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) Switching Type .... 13 + 6 Security Considerations ................................ 13 + 7 References ............................................. 14 + 7.1 Normative References ................................... 14 + 7.2 Informative References ................................. 15 + 8 Acknowledgments ........................................ 15 + 9 Author's Addresses ..................................... 16 1. Introduction [MEF6] and [G.8011] provide parallel frameworks for defining network- oriented characteristics of Ethernet services in transport networks. The framework discusses general Ethernet connection characteristics, Ethernet User-Network Interfaces (UNIs) and Ethernet Network-Network Interfaces (NNIs). Within this framework, [G.8011.1] defines the Ethernet Private Line (EPL) service and [G.8011.2] defines the Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) service. [MEF6] covers both @@ -121,21 +129,21 @@ [MEF6] and [G.8011]: point-to-point (P2P) and multipoint-to- multipoint (MP2MP). [MEF6] uses the term Ethernet Line (E-line) to refer to point-to-point virtual connections, and Ethernet LAN (E-LAN) to refer to multipoint-to-multipoint virtual connections. [G.8011] also identifies point-to-multipoint (P2MP) as an area for "further study." Within the context of GMPLS, support is defined for point- to-point unidirectional and bidirectional TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs), see [RFC3473], and unidirectional point-to-multipoint TE 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 [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 are included in the scope of this document. There is no such clear correspondence between E-LAN/MP2MP service and GMPLS TE LSPs. Although it is possible to emulate the service using multiple P2P or P2MP TE LSPs. The definition of support for MP2MP service is left for future study and is not addressed in this document. [MEF11] defines multiple types of control for UNI Ethernet services. @@ -176,41 +184,41 @@ "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 2. Common Signaling Support This section describes the common mechanisms for supporting GMPLS signaled control of LSPs that provide Ethernet connections as defined in [MEF11], [G.8011.1] and [G.8011.2]. 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 [RFC3473], MUST be followed in all cases not explicitly described in this document. 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 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 + are carried in the CALL_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 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 CALL_ATTRIBUTES object in a Notify message. 2.1.1. Endpoint ID TLV @@ -241,38 +249,30 @@ The use of the Endpoint ID TLV is required during call management. 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]. - 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 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 - [RFC4974] terms) are present. An LSP will always be established - within the context of a call and, typically, only one LSP will be - used per call. See Section 4.4 for the case where more than one LSP - may exist within a call. + connections, a call only is only established when one or more LSPs + (connections in [RFC4974] terms) are needed. An LSP will always be + established within the context of a call and, typically, only one LSP + will be used per call. See Section 4.4 for the case where more than + one LSP may exist within a call. 2.2.1. Procedures Any node that supports Ethernet connections MUST be able to accept and process call setups per [RFC4974]. Ethernet connections established according to this document MUST treat the Ethernet (virtual) connection identifier as the long "Call identifier (ID)", described in [RFC4974]. The short Call ID MUST be used as described in [RFC4974]. Use of the LINK_CAPABILITY object is OPTIONAL. Both network-initiated and user-initiated Calls MUST be supported. @@ -313,22 +313,22 @@ 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=3 | Length=8 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IL2CP | EL2CP | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 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. + Per [ETH-TRAFFIC], the Type field MUST be set to three (3), 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 @@ -368,42 +367,41 @@ 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 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 connections, provided by SDH, ATM, MPLS, PDH, ETY or OTH server layer networks." [G.8011.1] defines two types of Ethernet Private Line (EPL) services. Both types present a service where all data 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 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 matches [G.8011.1] EPL type 1 service. Signaling for LSPs that support both types of EPL services are detailed below. 3.1. EPL Service Parameters Signaling for the EPL service types only differ in the LSP Encoding Type used. The LSP Encoding Type used for each are: EPL Service LSP Encoding Type ----------- ----------------- 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: Parameter Value -------------- ----- Switching Type DCSC [GMPLS-EXT] G-PID Ethernet (33) [RFC3471] The parameters defined in this section MUST be used when establishing and controlling LSPs that provide EPL service type Ethernet switching. The procedures defined in Section 2 and the other @@ -420,42 +418,42 @@ or unbundled. Independent of the different forms, LSPs supporting EVPL Ethernet type switching are signaled using the same mechanisms to communicate the one or more VLAN IDs associated with a particular LSP (Ethernet connection). The relevant [RFC3471] parameter values that MUST be used for EVPL connections are: Parameter Value -------------- ----- - Switching Type TBD [NOTE: under discussion] + Switching Type EVPL [This document] (TBA by IANA) LSP Encoding Type Ethernet (2) G-PID Ethernet (33) As with EPL, the procedures defined in Section 2 and the other procedures defined in [RFC3473] for the establishment and management of bidirectional LSPs MUST be followed when establishing and controlling LSPs that provide EVPL service type Ethernet switching. LSPs that provide EVPL service type Ethernet switching MUST use the EVPL Generalized Label Format per Section 4.1, and the Generalized Channel_Set Label Objects per [GMPLS-EXT]. A notable implication of bundled EVPL services and carrying multiple VLAN IDs is that a Path message may grow to be larger than a single (fragmented or non- fragmented) IP packet. The basic approach to solving this is to 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 4.4. 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 services also use the same label. The format for the Generalized Label (Label Type value 2) used with EVPL services is: 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Rsvd | VLAN ID | @@ -466,26 +464,27 @@ 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. VLAN ID: 12 bits A VLAN identifier. 4.2. Egress VLAN ID Control and VLAN ID preservation - Per [MEF6], the mapping of the single VLAN ID used at the incoming - interface of the ingress to a different VLAN ID at the outgoing - interface at the egress UNI is allowed for EVPL services that do not - support either bundling and VLAN ID preservation. Such a mapping - MUST be requested and signaled based on the explicit label control - mechanism defined in [RFC3473] and clarified in [RFC4003]. + When an EVPL service does not support both bundling and VLAN ID + preservation, [MEF6] allows VLAN ID mapping. In particular, the + single VLAN ID used at the incoming interface of the ingress may be + mapped to a different VLAN ID at the outgoing interface at the egress + UNI. Such mapping MUST be requested and signaled based on the + explicit label control mechanism defined in [RFC3473] and clarified + in [RFC4003]. When the explicit label control mechanism is not used, VLAN IDs MUST be preserved, i.e., not modified, across an LSP. 4.3. Single Call - Single LSP For simplicity in management, a single LSP SHOULD be used for each EVPL type LSP whose Path and Resv messages fit within a single unfragmented IP packet. This allows the reuse of all standard LSP modification procedures. Of particular note is the modification of @@ -536,75 +535,85 @@ the "LSP Encoding Types" section of the "GMPLS Signaling Parameters" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig- parameters: Value Type Reference ----- --------------------------- --------- 14* Line (e.g., 8B/10B) [This document] (*) 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 This document introduces new message object formats for use in GMPLS signaling [RFC3473]. It does not introduce any new signaling messages, nor change the relationship between LSRs that are adjacent in the control plane. As such, this document introduces no additional security considerations. See [RFC3473] for relevant security considerations. 7. References 7.1. Normative References [ETH-TRAFFIC] Papadimitriou, D., "Ethernet Traffic Parameters," - draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-traffic-parameters-05.txt, - Work in progress, July 12, 2008. + draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-traffic-parameters-06.txt, + Work in progress, October 31, 2008. [GMPLS-EXT] Berger, L., Papadimitriou, P., Fedyk, D., "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Data Channel Switching Capable (DCSC) and Channel Set Label Extensions", draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-00.txt, Work in Progress, August 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. + draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-extensions-03.txt, + Work in progress, October 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", RFC 3471, January 2003. [RFC3473] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling - Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. [RFC4003] Berger, L., "GMPLS Signaling Procedure for Egress 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 (GMPLS) RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in support of Calls", RFC 4974, August 2007. 7.2. Informative References [G.8011] ITU-T G.8011/Y.1307, "Ethernet over Transport Ethernet services framework", August 2004. [G.8011.1] ITU-T G.G.8011.1/Y.1307.1, "Ethernet private @@ -641,63 +650,19 @@ The authors would like to thank Evelyne Roch, Stephen Shew, and Yoav Cohen for their valuable comments. 9. Author's Addresses Lou Berger LabN Consulting, L.L.C. Phone: +1-301-468-9228 Email: lberger@labn.net + Don Fedyk Nortel Networks 600 Technology Park Drive Billerica, MA, 01821 Phone: +1-978-288-3041 Email: dwfedyk@nortel.com -10. Full Copyright Statement - - Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). - - This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions - contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors - retain all their rights. - - This document and the information contained herein are provided on an - "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS - OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND - THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS - OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF - THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED - WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. - -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 +Generated on: Wed Feb 25 20:00:02 EST 2009