--- 1/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-03.txt 2009-10-15 00:12:33.000000000 +0200 +++ 2/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-04.txt 2009-10-15 00:12:33.000000000 +0200 @@ -1,20 +1,20 @@ Internet Draft Lou Berger (LabN) -Category: Standards Track Don Fedyk (Nortel) -Expiration Date: August 25, 2009 +Category: Standards Track Don Fedyk (Alcatel-Lucent) +Expiration Date: April 14, 2010 - February 25, 2009 + October 14, 2009 Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support For Metro Ethernet Forum and G.8011 Ethernet Service Switching - draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-03.txt + draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-04.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 BCP 78 and BCP 79. @@ -28,44 +28,43 @@ 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 August 25, 2009. + This Internet-Draft will expire on April 14, 2010. Copyright and License Notice 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. + Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of + publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). + 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 + (GMPLS). This document supports the types of switching corresponding + to 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 and Ethernet virtual private line services. Support for MEF and - ITU defined parameters are also covered. + line and Ethernet virtual private line services are covered. Support + for MEF and ITU defined parameters is 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 .............................. 6 @@ -112,79 +111,79 @@ 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 [ETH-TRAFFIC] and the generic extensions defined in [GMPLS-EXT]. 1.1. Overview This document uses a common approach to supporting the switching - implied by the Ethernet services defined in [MEF6], [G.8011.1] and - [G.8011.2]. The approach builds on standard GMPLS mechanisms to + corresponding to the Ethernet services defined in [MEF6], [G.8011.1] + and [G.8011.2]. The approach builds on standard GMPLS mechanisms to deliver the required control capabilities. This document reuses the GMPLS mechanisms specified in [RFC3473] and [RFC4974]. The document uses the extensions defined in [GMPLS-EXT]. Two types of connectivity between Ethernet endpoints are defined in [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 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. + Support for P2P and MP2MP services is defined by [G.8011] and + required by [MEF11]. Note that while [MEF11] and [G.8011] discuss + MP2MP, [G.8011.1] and [G.8011.2] only define support for P2P. There + is a clear correspondence between E-Line/P2P service and GMPLS P2P TE + LSPs, and support for such LSPs is 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 this + 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. In MEF UNI Type 1, services are configured manually. In MEF UNI Type 2, services may be configured manually or via a link management interface. In MEF UNI Type 3, services may be established and managed via a signaling interface. From the MEF perspective, this - document along with [GMPLS-MEF-UNI] are aimed at the network control + document along with [GMPLS-MEF-UNI] is aimed at the network control needed to support the MEF UNI Type 3 mode of operation. [G.8011.1], [G.8011.2] and [MEF11] together with [MEF10.1] define a set of service attributes that are associated with each Ethernet connection. Some of these attributes are based on the provisioning of the local physical connection and are not modifiable or selectable 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 + other class of attributes is 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 [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 + Section 2 of this document. Procedures related to the signaling of 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. + Procedures related to the signaling of switching in support of EVPL + services are described in Section 4. 1.2. Conventions used in this document The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 2. Common Signaling Support This section describes the common mechanisms for supporting GMPLS @@ -195,32 +194,32 @@ 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. + as opposed 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 CALL_ATTRIBUTES object. As with the long call ID, - the Ethernet endpoint identifier is typically only relevant at the - ingress and egress nodes. + ID, and supports the Ethernet endpoint identifier similar to + [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 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 @@ -253,42 +252,42 @@ 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]. 2.2. Connection Identification 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 used to support endpoint identification. In the context of Ethernet - connections, a call only is only established when one or more LSPs + connections, a call 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. When establishing an Ethernet connection the initiator MUST first 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 + 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 [ETH-TRAFFIC]. These parameters are carried in the FLOWSPEC and TSPEC objects as discussed in [ETH-TRAFFIC]. The service attributes that are carried are: @@ -467,21 +466,21 @@ 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 - When an EVPL service does not support both bundling and VLAN ID + When an EVPL service is not configured for 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. @@ -510,52 +509,52 @@ IDs MAY be added to the EVPL connection using either a new LSP or make-before-break procedures, see [RFC3209]. Make-before-break procedures on individual LSPs SHOULD be used to remove VLAN IDs. To change other service parameters it is necessary to resignal all LSPs associated with the call via make-before-break procedures. 5. IANA Considerations IANA is requested to administer assignment of new values for - namespaces defined in this document and reviewed in this section. + namespaces defined in this document and summarized in this section. 5.1. Endpoint ID Attributes TLV - Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the assignment in - the "CALL_ATTRIBUTES TLV Space" section of the "RSVP TE Parameters" + Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the assignment in the + "CALL_ATTRIBUTES TLV Space" section of the "RSVP TE Parameters" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te- parameters: Type Name Reference ---- ----------- --------- 2* Endpoint ID [This document] (*) Suggested value. 5.2. 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" + Upon approval of this document, 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: 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" + Upon approval of this document, 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 @@ -569,34 +568,34 @@ 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-06.txt, - Work in progress, October 31, 2008. + draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-traffic-parameters, + Work in progress. - [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-EXT] Berger, L., Fedyk, D., "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Data + Channel Switching Capable (DCSC) and Channel Set + Label Extensions", + draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext, Work in + Progres. [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-03.txt, - Work in progress, October 2008. + draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-extensions, + Work in progress. [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", @@ -618,26 +617,24 @@ [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 line service", August 2004. [G.8011.2] ITU-T G.8011.2/Y.1307.2, "Ethernet virtual private line service", September 2005. - [GMPLS-MEF-UNI] Berger, L., Papadimitriou, P., Fedyk, D., - "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support For Metro - Ethernet Forum and G.8011 User-Network Interface - (UNI)", Work in Progress, - draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-01.txt, - August 2008. + [GMPLS-MEF-UNI] Berger, L., Fedyk, D., "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) + Support For Metro Ethernet Forum and G.8011 + User-Network Interface (UNI)", + draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni, Work in Progress. [MEF6] The Metro Ethernet Forum, "Ethernet Services Definitions - Phase I", MEF 6, June 2004 [MEF10.1] The Metro Ethernet Forum, "Ethernet Services Attributes Phase 2", MEF 10.1, November 2006. [MEF11] The Metro Ethernet Forum , "User Network Interface (UNI) Requirements and Framework", MEF 11, November 2004. @@ -657,17 +654,16 @@ 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 + Alcatel-Lucent + Groton, MA, 01450 + Phone: +1-978-467-5645 + Email: donald.fedyk@alcatel-lucent.com -Generated on: Wed Feb 25 20:00:02 EST 2009 +Generated on: Wed Oct 14 14:47:45 EDT 2009