draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-04.txt   rfc6004.txt 
Internet Draft Lou Berger (LabN)
Category: Standards Track Don Fedyk (Alcatel-Lucent)
Expiration Date: April 14, 2010
October 14, 2009 Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Berger
Request for Comments: 6004 LabN
Category: Standards Track D. Fedyk
ISSN: 2070-1721 Alcatel-Lucent
October 2010
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-04.txt Abstract
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.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering This document describes a method for controlling two specific types
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that of Ethernet switching via Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- (GMPLS). This document supports the types of switching corresponding
Drafts. 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 are covered. Support
for MEF- and ITU-defined parameters is also covered.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Status of This Memo
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at This is an Internet Standards Track document.
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 14, 2010. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6004.
Copyright and License Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights publication of this document. Please review these documents
and restrictions with respect to this document. carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
Abstract include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
This document describes a method for controlling two specific types described in the Simplified BSD License.
of Ethernet switching via Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(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 are covered. Support
for MEF and ITU defined parameters is also covered.
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 ..........................4
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 .....................................5
2.2 Connection Identification .............................. 6 2.1.1.1. Procedures .................................6
2.2.1 Procedures ............................................. 7 2.2. Connection Identification ..................................6
2.3 Traffic Parameters ..................................... 7 2.2.1. Procedures ..........................................6
2.3.1 L2 Control Protocol TLV ................................ 7 2.3. Traffic Parameters .........................................7
2.4 Bundling and VLAN Identification ....................... 9 2.3.1. L2 Control Protocol TLV .............................7
3 EPL Service ............................................ 9 2.4. Bundling and VLAN Identification ...........................9
3.1 EPL Service Parameters ................................. 9 3. EPL Service .....................................................9
4 EVPL Service ........................................... 10 3.1. EPL Service Parameters .....................................9
4.1 EVPL Generalized Label Format .......................... 11 4. EVPL Service ...................................................10
4.2 Egress VLAN ID Control and VLAN ID preservation ........ 11 4.1. EVPL Generalized Label Format .............................10
4.3 Single Call - Single LSP ............................... 12 4.2. Egress VLAN ID Control and VLAN ID Preservation ...........11
4.4 Single Call - Multiple LSPs ............................ 12 4.3. Single Call - Single LSP ..................................11
5 IANA Considerations .................................... 12 4.4. Single Call - Multiple LSPs ...............................11
5.1 Endpoint ID Attributes TLV ............................. 12 5. IANA Considerations ............................................12
5.2 Line LSP Encoding ...................................... 13 5.1. Endpoint ID Attributes TLV ................................12
5.3 Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) Switching Type .... 13 5.2. Line LSP Encoding .........................................12
6 Security Considerations ................................ 13 5.3. Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) Switching Type .......12
7 References ............................................. 14 6. Security Considerations ........................................13
7.1 Normative References ................................... 14 7. References .....................................................13
7.2 Informative References ................................. 15 7.1. Normative References ......................................13
8 Acknowledgments ........................................ 15 7.2. Informative References ....................................14
9 Author's Addresses ..................................... 16 Acknowledgments ...................................................14
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
service types. [MEF10.1] defines service parameters and [MEF11] service types. [MEF10.1] defines service parameters and [MEF11]
provides UNI requirements and framework. provides UNI requirements and framework.
[MEF6] and [G.8011] are focused on service interfaces and not the [MEF6] and [G.8011] are focused on service interfaces and not the
underlying technology used to support the service. For example, underlying technology used to support the service. For example,
[G.8011] refers to the defined services being transported over one of [G.8011] refers to the defined services being transported over one of
several possible "server layers". This document focuses on the types several possible "server layers". This document focuses on the types
of switching that may directly support these services and provides a of switching that may directly support these services and provides a
method for GMPLS based control of such switching technologies. This method for GMPLS-based control of such switching technologies. This
document defines the GMPLS extensions needed to support such document defines the GMPLS extensions needed to support such
switching, but does not define the UNI or External NNI (E-NNI) 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 points. See [RFC6005] for a description of the UNI
reference point. This document makes use of the traffic parameters reference point. This document makes use of the traffic parameters
defined in [ETH-TRAFFIC] and the generic extensions defined in defined in [RFC6003] and the generic extensions defined in [RFC6002].
[GMPLS-EXT].
1.1. Overview 1.1. Overview
This document uses a common approach to supporting the switching This document uses a common approach to supporting the switching
corresponding to the Ethernet services defined in [MEF6], [G.8011.1] corresponding to the Ethernet services defined in [MEF6], [G.8011.1],
and [G.8011.2]. The approach builds on standard GMPLS mechanisms to and [G.8011.2]. The approach builds on standard GMPLS mechanisms to
deliver the required control capabilities. This document reuses the deliver the required control capabilities. This document reuses the
GMPLS mechanisms specified in [RFC3473] and [RFC4974]. The document GMPLS mechanisms specified in [RFC3473] and [RFC4974]. The document
uses the extensions defined in [GMPLS-EXT]. uses the extensions defined in [RFC6002].
Two types of connectivity between Ethernet endpoints are defined in Two types of connectivity between Ethernet endpoints are defined in
[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 Traffic Engineering Label
(LSPs), see [RFC3473], and unidirectional point-to-multipoint TE Switched Paths (TE LSPs), see [RFC3473], and unidirectional point-to-
LSPs, see [RFC4875]. multipoint TE LSPs, see [RFC4875].
Support for P2P and MP2MP services is defined by [G.8011] and Support for P2P and MP2MP services is defined by [G.8011] and
required by [MEF11]. Note that while [MEF11] and [G.8011] discuss 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 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 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 LSPs, and support for such LSPs is included in the scope of this
document. There is no such clear correspondence between E-LAN/MP2MP document. There is no such clear correspondence between E-LAN/MP2MP
service and GMPLS TE LSPs. Although, it is possible to emulate this service and GMPLS TE LSPs. Although, it is possible to emulate this
service using multiple P2P or P2MP TE LSPs, the definition of support 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 for MP2MP service is left for future study and is not addressed in
this document. this document.
[MEF11] defines multiple types of control for UNI Ethernet services. [MEF11] defines multiple types of control for UNI Ethernet services.
In MEF UNI Type 1, services are configured manually. In MEF UNI Type In MEF UNI Type 1, services are configured manually. In MEF UNI Type
2, services may be configured manually or via a link management 2, services may be configured manually or via a link management
interface. In MEF UNI Type 3, services may be established and interface. In MEF UNI Type 3, services may be established and
managed via a signaling interface. From the MEF perspective, this managed via a signaling interface. From the MEF perspective, this
document along with [GMPLS-MEF-UNI] is aimed at the network control document, along with [RFC6005], is aimed at the network control
needed to support the MEF UNI Type 3 mode of operation. 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 [G.8011.1], [G.8011.2], and [MEF11], together with [MEF10.1], define
set of service attributes that are associated with each Ethernet a set of service attributes that are associated with each Ethernet
connection. Some of these attributes are based on the provisioning connection. Some of these attributes are based on the provisioning
of the local physical connection and are not modifiable or selectable of the local physical connection and are not modifiable or selectable
per connection. Other attributes are specific to a particular per connection. Other attributes are specific to a particular
connection, or must be consistent across the connection. The connection or must be consistent across the connection. The approach
approach taken in this document to communicate these attributes is to taken in this document to communicate these attributes is to exclude
exclude the static class of attributes from signaling. This class of the static class of attributes from signaling. This class of
attributes will not be explicitly discussed in this document. The attributes will not be explicitly discussed in this document. The
other class of attributes is 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 reviewed in the sections below. The major attributes that will be
supported in signaling include: supported in signaling include:
- Endpoint identifiers - Endpoint identifiers
- Connection identifiers - Connection identifiers
- Traffic parameters (see [ETH-TRAFFIC]) - Traffic parameters (see [RFC6003])
- Bundling / VLAN IDs map (EVPL only) - Bundling / VLAN IDs map (EVPL only)
- VLAN ID Preservation (EVPL only) - VLAN ID Preservation (EVPL only)
Common procedures used to support Ethernet LSPs are described in Common procedures used to support Ethernet LSPs are described in
Section 2 of this document. Procedures related to the signaling of Section 2 of this document. Procedures related to the signaling of
switching in support of EPL services are described in Section 3. switching in support of EPL services are described in Section 3.
Procedures related to the signaling of switching in support of EVPL Procedures related to the signaling of switching in support of EVPL
services are described in Section 4. services are described in Section 4.
1.2. Conventions used in this document 1.2. Conventions Used in This Document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. 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 are 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 opposed 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 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 similar to ID, and supports the Ethernet endpoint identifier similar to how
[RFC4974] supports the long call ID. That is, the SENDER_TEMPLATE [RFC4974] supports the long Call ID. That is, the SENDER_TEMPLATE
and SESSION objects carry IP addresses and a short call ID, and long and SESSION objects carry IP addresses and a short Call ID, and long
identifiers are carried in the CALL_ATTRIBUTES object. As with the identifiers are carried in the CALL_ATTRIBUTES object. As with the
long call ID, the Ethernet endpoint identifier is typically only long Call ID, the Ethernet endpoint identifier is typically only
relevant at the ingress and egress nodes. relevant at the 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
The Endpoint ID TLV follows the Attributes TLV format defined in The Endpoint ID TLV follows the Attributes TLV format defined in
[GMPLS-MRN]. The Endpoint ID TLV has the following format: [RFC6001]. The Endpoint ID TLV has the following format:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (TBA) | Length (variable) | | Type (30) | Length (variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Endpoint ID | | Endpoint ID |
| ... | | ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type and Length fields are defined in [GMPLS-MRN]. Note that as Type and Length fields are defined in [RFC6001]. Note that as
defined in [GMPLS-MRN], the Length field is set to length of the defined in [RFC6001], the Length field is set to length of the whole
whole TLV including the Type, Length and Endpoint ID fields. TLV including the Type, Length, and Endpoint ID fields.
Endpoint ID Endpoint ID
The Endpoint ID field is a variable size field that carries an The Endpoint ID field is a variable-size field that carries an
endpoint identifier, see [MEF10.1] and [G.8011]. This field endpoint identifier, see [MEF10.1] and [G.8011]. This field MUST
MUST be null padded as defined in [GMPLS-MRN]. be null padded as defined in [RFC6001].
2.1.1.1. Procedures 2.1.1.1. Procedures
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].
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 used to [RFC4974]. In particular, the Call-related mechanisms are used to
support endpoint identification. In the context of Ethernet support endpoint identification. In the context of Ethernet
connections, a call 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 (connections in [RFC4974] terms) are needed. An LSP will always be
established within the context of a call and, typically, only one LSP 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 will be used per Call. See Section 4.4 for the case where more than
one LSP 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.
When establishing an Ethernet connection the initiator MUST first When establishing an Ethernet connection, the initiator MUST first
establish a Call per the procedures defined in [RFC4974]. LSP establish a Call per the procedures defined in [RFC4974]. LSP
management, including removal and addition, then follows [RFC4974]. 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 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 associated with a Call is removed, the Call SHOULD be torn down per
the procedures in [RFC4974]. the procedures in [RFC4974].
2.3. Traffic Parameters 2.3. Traffic Parameters
Several types of service attributes are carried in the traffic Several types of service attributes are carried in the traffic
parameters defined in [ETH-TRAFFIC]. These parameters are carried in parameters defined in [RFC6003]. These parameters are carried in the
the FLOWSPEC and TSPEC objects as discussed in [ETH-TRAFFIC]. The FLOWSPEC and TSPEC objects as discussed in [RFC6003]. The service
service attributes that are carried are: attributes that are carried are:
- Bandwidth Profile - Bandwidth Profile
- VLAN CoS Preservation - VLAN Class of Service (CoS) Preservation
- Layer Two (L2) Control Protocol Processing (see Section 2.3.1) - Layer 2 Control Protocol (L2CP) Processing (see Section 2.3.1)
Ethernet connections established according to this document MUST use Ethernet connections established according to this document MUST use
the traffic parameters defined in [ETH-TRAFFIC] in the FLOWSPEC and the traffic parameters defined in [RFC6003] in the FLOWSPEC and TSPEC
TSPEC objects. Additionally, the Switching Granularity field of the objects. Additionally, the Switching Granularity field of the
Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object MUST be set to zero (0). Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object MUST be set to zero (0).
2.3.1. L2 Control Protocol TLV 2.3.1. L2 Control Protocol TLV
[MEF10.1], [8011.1] and [8011.2] define service attributes that [MEF10.1], [G.8011.1], and [G.8011.2] define service attributes that
impact the layer two (L2) control protocol processing at the ingress impact the layer two (L2) control protocol processing at the ingress
and egress. [ETH-TRAFFIC] does not define support for these service and egress. [RFC6003] does not define support for these service
attributes, but does allow the attributes to be carried in a TLV. attributes, but does allow the attributes to be carried in a TLV.
This section defines the L2 Control Protocol (L2CP) TLV to carry the This section defines the L2CP TLV to carry the L2CP-processing-
L2 control protocol processing related service attributes. related service attributes.
The format of the L2 Control Protocol (L2CP) TLV is as follows: The format of the L2 Control Protocol (L2CP) TLV is as follows:
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 [RFC6003] for a description of the Type and Length fields.
See [ETH-TRAFFIC] for a description of the Type and Length fields. Per [RFC6003], the Type field MUST be set to three (3), 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
on a receiving interface. Valid usage is service specific, a receiving interface. Valid usage is service specific, see
see [MEF10.1], [8011.1] and [8011.2]. [MEF10.1], [G.8011.1], and [G.8011.2].
Permitted values are: Permitted values are:
Value Description Reference Value Description Reference
----- ----------- --------- ----- ----------- ---------
0 Reserved 0 Reserved
1 Discard/Block [MEF10.1], [8011.1] and [8011.2] 1 Discard/Block [MEF10.1], [G.8011.1], and [G.8011.2]
2 Peer/Process [MEF10.1], [8011.1] and [8011.2] 2 Peer/Process [MEF10.1], [G.8011.1], and [G.8011.2]
3 Pass to EVC/Pass [MEF10.1], [8011.1] and [8011.2] 3 Pass to EVC/Pass [MEF10.1], [G.8011.1], and [G.8011.2]
4 Peer and Pass to EVC [MEF10.1] 4 Peer and Pass to EVC [MEF10.1]
Egress Layer 2 Control Processing (EL2CP): 4 bits Egress Layer 2 Control Processing (EL2CP): 4 bits
This field controls processing of Layer 2 Control Protocols on This field controls processing of Layer 2 Control Protocols on a
a transmitting interface. When MEF services are used a value transmitting interface. When MEF services are used a value of 1 MUST
of 1 MUST be used, other valid usage is service specific, see be used, other valid usage is service specific, see [G.8011.1] and
[8011.1] and [8011.2]. [G.8011.2].
Permitted values are: Permitted values are:
Value Description Reference Value Description Reference
----- ----------- --------- ----- ----------- ---------
0 Reserved 0 Reserved
1 Based on IL2CP Value [MEF10.1] 1 Based on IL2CP Value [MEF10.1]
2 Generate [8011.1] and [8011.2] 2 Generate [G.8011.1] and [G.8011.2]
3 None [8011.1] and [8011.2] 3 None [G.8011.1] and [G.8011.2]
4 Reserved 4 Reserved
Reserved: 24 bits Reserved: 24 bits
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
and MUST be ignored on receipt. This field SHOULD be passed MUST be ignored on receipt. This field SHOULD be passed unmodified
unmodified by transit nodes. by transit nodes.
Ethernet connections established according to this document MUST Ethernet connections established according to this document MUST
include the L2CP TLV in the [ETH-TRAFFIC] traffic parameters carried include the L2CP TLV in the [RFC6003] traffic parameters carried in
in the FLOWSPEC and TSPEC objects. the FLOWSPEC and TSPEC objects.
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)
service. 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 connected
The types differ in that EPL type 1 service operates at the MAC frame port. The types differ in that EPL type 1 service operates at the
layer, while EPL type 2 service operates at the line (e.g., 8B/10B) MAC frame layer, while EPL type 2 service operates at the line (e.g.,
encoding layer. [MEF6] only defines one type of EPL service, and it 8B/10B) encoding layer. [MEF6] only defines one type of EPL service,
matches [G.8011.1] EPL type 1 service. Signaling for LSPs that and it matches [G.8011.1] EPL type 1 service. Signaling for LSPs
support both types of EPL services are detailed below. that 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 (Value) Reference
----------- ----------------- ----------- ------------------------- ---------
Type 1/MEF Ethernet (2) [RFC3471] Type 1/MEF Ethernet (2) [RFC3471]
Type 2 Line (e.g., 8B/10B) [This document] (TBA by IANA) Type 2 Line (e.g., 8B/10B)(14) [RFC6004]
The other LSP parameters specific to EPL Service are: The other LSP parameters specific to EPL Service are:
Parameter Value Parameter Name (Value) Reference
-------------- ----- -------------- ----------------- ------------------
Switching Type DCSC [GMPLS-EXT] Switching Type DCSC (125) [RFC6002]
G-PID Ethernet (33) [RFC3471] G-PID Ethernet PHY (33) [RFC3471][RFC4328]
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
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 EPL service type Ethernet switching. controlling LSPs that provide EPL service type Ethernet switching.
4. EVPL Service 4. EVPL Service
EVPL service is defined within the context of both [G.8011.2] and EVPL service is defined within the context of both [G.8011.2] and
[MEF6]. EVPL service allows for multiple Ethernet connections per [MEF6]. EVPL service allows for multiple Ethernet connections per
port, each of which supports a specific set of VLAN IDs. The service port, each of which supports a specific set of VLAN IDs. The service
attributes identify different forms of EVPL services, e.g., bundled attributes identify different forms of EVPL services, e.g., bundled
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 Name (Value) Reference
-------------- ----- -------------- ----------------- ------------------
Switching Type EVPL [This document] (TBA by IANA) Switching Type EVPL (30) [RFC6004]
LSP Encoding Type Ethernet (2) LSP Encoding Type Ethernet (2) [RFC3471]
G-PID Ethernet (33) G-PID Ethernet PHY (33) [RFC3471][RFC4328]
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 [RFC6002]. 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 require 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Reserved: 4 bits Reserved: 4 bits
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
When an EVPL service is not configured for 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 preservation, [MEF6] allows VLAN ID mapping. In particular, the
single VLAN ID used at the incoming interface of the ingress may be 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 mapped to a different VLAN ID at the outgoing interface at the egress
UNI. Such mapping MUST be requested and signaled based on the UNI. Such mapping MUST be requested and signaled based on the
explicit label control mechanism defined in [RFC3473] and clarified explicit label control mechanism defined in [RFC3473] and clarified
in [RFC4003]. 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
the VLAN IDs associated with the Ethernet connection. Specifically, the VLAN IDs associated with the Ethernet connection. Specifically,
[GMPLS-EXT], make-before-break procedures SHOULD be used to modify [RFC6002], make-before-break procedures SHOULD be used to modify the
the Channel_Set LABEL object. Channel_Set LABEL object.
4.4. Single Call - Multiple LSPs 4.4. Single Call - Multiple LSPs
Multiple LSPs MAY be used to support an EVPL service connection. All Multiple LSPs MAY be used to support an EVPL service connection. All
such LSPs MUST be established within the same call and follow call such LSPs MUST be established within the same Call and follow Call-
related procedures, see Section 2.2. The primary purpose of multiple related procedures, see Section 2.2. The primary purpose of multiple
LSPs is to support the case where the related objects result in a LSPs is to support the case in which the related objects result in a
Path message being larger than a single unfragmented IP packet. Path message being larger than a single unfragmented IP packet.
When using multiple LSPs, all LSPs associated with the same call / When using multiple LSPs, all LSPs associated with the same Call/EVPL
EVPL connection MUST be signaled with the same LSP objects with the connection MUST be signaled with the same LSP objects with the
exception of the SENDER_TEMPLATE, SESSION and label related objects. exception of the SENDER_TEMPLATE, SESSION, and label-related objects.
All such LSPs SHOULD share resources. When using multiple LSPs, VLAN All such LSPs SHOULD share resources. When using multiple LSPs, VLAN
IDs MAY be added to the EVPL connection using either a new LSP or IDs MAY be added to the EVPL connection using either a new LSP or
make-before-break procedures, see [RFC3209]. Make-before-break make-before-break procedures, see [RFC3209]. Make-before-break
procedures on individual LSPs SHOULD be used to remove VLAN IDs. procedures on individual LSPs SHOULD be used to remove VLAN IDs.
To change other service parameters it is necessary to resignal all To change other service parameters it is necessary to re-signal all
LSPs associated with the call via make-before-break procedures. LSPs associated with the Call via make-before-break procedures.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to administer assignment of new values for IANA has assigned new values for namespaces defined in this document
namespaces defined in this document and summarized in this section. and summarized in this section. The registries are available from
http://www.iana.org.
5.1. Endpoint ID Attributes TLV 5.1. Endpoint ID Attributes TLV
Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the assignment in the IANA has made the following assignment in the "Call Attributes TLV"
"CALL_ATTRIBUTES TLV Space" section of the "RSVP TE Parameters" section of the "RSVP Parameters" registry.
registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-
parameters:
Type Name Reference Type Name Reference
---- ----------- --------- ---- ----------- ---------
2* Endpoint ID [This document] 2 Endpoint ID [RFC6004]
(*) Suggested value.
5.2. Line LSP Encoding 5.2. Line LSP Encoding
Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the assignment in the IANA has made the following assignment in the "LSP Encoding Types"
"LSP Encoding Types" section of the "GMPLS Signaling Parameters" section of the "GMPLS Signaling Parameters" registry.
registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-
parameters:
Value Type Reference Value Type Reference
----- --------------------------- --------- ----- --------------------------- ---------
14* Line (e.g., 8B/10B) [This document] 14 Line (e.g., 8B/10B) [RFC6004]
(*) Suggested value.
5.3. Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) Switching Type 5.3. Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) Switching Type
Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the assignment in the IANA has made the following assignment in the "Switching Types"
"Switching Types" section of the "GMPLS Signaling Parameters" section of the "GMPLS Signaling Parameters" registry.
registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-
parameters:
Value Type Reference Value Type Reference
----- --------------------------- --------- ----- ------------------------------------ ---------
30* Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) [This document] 30 Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) [RFC6004]
(*) Suggested value.
It should be noted that the assigned value should be reflected in The assigned value has been reflected in IANAGmplsSwitchingTypeTC of
IANAGmplsSwitchingTypeTC at the IANA-GMPLS-TC-MIB available from http://www.iana.org.
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 Label Switching Routers
in the control plane. As such, this document introduces no additional (LSRs) that are adjacent in the control plane. As such, this
security considerations. See [RFC3473] for relevant security document introduces no additional security considerations to those
considerations. discussed in [RFC3473].
7. References 7. References
7.1. Normative References 7.1. Normative References
[ETH-TRAFFIC] Papadimitriou, D., "Ethernet Traffic Parameters," [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-traffic-parameters, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Work in progress.
[GMPLS-EXT] Berger, L., Fedyk, D., "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Data [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
Channel Switching Capable (DCSC) and Channel Set and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Label Extensions", Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext, Work in
Progres.
[GMPLS-MRN] Papadimitriou, D. et al, "Generalized Multi-Protocol [RFC3471] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Label Switching (GMPLS) Protocol Extensions for Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC
Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks (MLN/MRN)", 3471, January 2003.
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-extensions,
Work in progress.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Requirement Levels," RFC 2119. Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473,
January 2003.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., [RFC4003] Berger, L., "GMPLS Signaling Procedure for Egress
Srinivasan, V. and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions Control", RFC 4003, February 2005.
to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC3471] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label [RFC4974] Papadimitriou, D. and A. Farrel, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in Support of Calls", RFC
RFC 3471, January 2003. 4974, August 2007.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label [RFC6001] Papadimitriou, D., Vigoureux, M., Shiomoto, K., Brungard,
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling - Resource ReserVation D. and JL. Le Roux, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Protocol
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", Extensions for Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks
RFC 3473, January 2003. (MLN/MRN)", RFC 6001, October 2010.
[RFC4003] Berger, L., "GMPLS Signaling Procedure for Egress [RFC6002] Berger, L. and D. Fedyk, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Data
Control", RFC 4003, February 2005. Channel Switching Capable (DCSC) and Channel Set Label
Extensions", RFC 6002, October 2010.
[RFC4974] Papadimitriou, D., Farrel, A. "Generalized MPLS [RFC6003] Papadimitriou, D., "Ethernet Traffic Parameters," RFC
(GMPLS) RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in support of Calls", 6003, October 2010.
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
Ethernet services framework", August 2004. 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 line
line service", August 2004. service", August 2004.
[G.8011.2] ITU-T G.8011.2/Y.1307.2, "Ethernet virtual [G.8011.2] ITU-T G.8011.2/Y.1307.2, "Ethernet virtual private line
private line service", September 2005. service", September 2005.
[GMPLS-MEF-UNI] Berger, L., Fedyk, D., "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) [MEF6] The Metro Ethernet Forum, "Ethernet Services Definitions -
Support For Metro Ethernet Forum and G.8011 Phase I", MEF 6, June 2004.
User-Network Interface (UNI)",
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni, Work in Progress.
[MEF6] The Metro Ethernet Forum, "Ethernet Services [MEF10.1] The Metro Ethernet Forum, "Ethernet Services Attributes
Definitions - Phase I", MEF 6, June 2004 Phase 2", MEF 10.1, November 2006.
[MEF10.1] The Metro Ethernet Forum, "Ethernet Services [MEF11] The Metro Ethernet Forum , "User Network Interface (UNI)
Attributes Phase 2", MEF 10.1, November 2006. Requirements and Framework", MEF 11, November 2004.
[MEF11] The Metro Ethernet Forum , "User Network [RFC4328] Papadimitriou, D., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Interface (UNI) Requirements and Framework", Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical
MEF 11, November 2004. Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328, January 2006.
[RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Papadimitriou, P., Yasukawa, S., [RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Ed., and S.
Eds, "Extensions to Resource Reservation Yasukawa, Ed., "Extensions to Resource Reservation
Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-
Point-to-Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875, May
(LSPs)", RFC 4875, May 2007. 2007.
8. Acknowledgments [RFC6005] Berger, L. and D. Fedyk,"Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support
for Metro Ethernet Forum and G.8011 User Network Interface
(UNI)", RFC 6005, October 2010.
Acknowledgments
Dimitri Papadimitriou provided substantial textual contributions to Dimitri Papadimitriou provided substantial textual contributions to
this document and coauthored earlier versions of this document. this document and coauthored earlier versions of this document.
The authors would like to thank Evelyne Roch, Stephen Shew, and 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 Authors' Addresses
Lou Berger Lou Berger
LabN Consulting, L.L.C. LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Phone: +1-301-468-9228 Phone: +1-301-468-9228
Email: lberger@labn.net EMail: lberger@labn.net
Don Fedyk Don Fedyk
Alcatel-Lucent Alcatel-Lucent
Groton, MA, 01450 Groton, MA 01450
Phone: +1-978-467-5645 Phone: +1-978-467-5645
Email: donald.fedyk@alcatel-lucent.com EMail: donald.fedyk@alcatel-lucent.com
Generated on: Wed Oct 14 14:47:45 EDT 2009
 End of changes. 134 change blocks. 
325 lines changed or deleted 300 lines changed or added

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