draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-00.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-01.txt 
CCAMP Working Group K. Kompella (Juniper Networks) CCAMP Working Group K. Kompella (Juniper Networks)
Internet Draft Y. Rekhter (Juniper Networks) Internet Draft Y. Rekhter (Juniper Networks)
Expiration Date: March 2002 A. Banerjee (Calient Networks) Expiration Date: May 2002 A. Banerjee (Calient Networks)
J. Drake (Calient Networks) J. Drake (Calient Networks)
G. Bernstein (Ciena) G. Bernstein (Ciena)
D. Fedyk (Nortel Networks) D. Fedyk (Nortel Networks)
E. Mannie (GTS Network) E. Mannie (GTS Network)
D. Saha (Tellium) D. Saha (Tellium)
V. Sharma (Metanoia, Inc.) V. Sharma (Metanoia, Inc.)
OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS
draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-00.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-01.txt
1. Status of this Memo 1. Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts. Drafts.
skipping to change at page 3, line 25 skipping to change at page 3, line 25
GMPLS TE links that can be announced in OSPF TE LSAs. The Traffic GMPLS TE links that can be announced in OSPF TE LSAs. The Traffic
Engineering (TE) LSA, which is an opaque LSA with area flooding scope Engineering (TE) LSA, which is an opaque LSA with area flooding scope
[3], has only one top-level Type/Length/Value (TLV) triplet and has [3], has only one top-level Type/Length/Value (TLV) triplet and has
one or more nested TLVs for extensibility. The top-level TLV can one or more nested TLVs for extensibility. The top-level TLV can
take one of two values (1) Router Address or (2) Link. In this take one of two values (1) Router Address or (2) Link. In this
document, we enhance the sub-TLVs for the Link TLV in support of document, we enhance the sub-TLVs for the Link TLV in support of
GMPLS. Specifically, we add the following sub-TLVs: GMPLS. Specifically, we add the following sub-TLVs:
1. Outgoing Interface Identifier, 1. Outgoing Interface Identifier,
2. Incoming Interface Identifier, 2. Incoming Interface Identifier,
3. Interface MTU 3. Link Protection Type,
4. Link Protection Type, 4. Shared Risk Link Group, and
5. Shared Risk Link Group, and 5. Interface Switching Capability Descriptor.
6. Interface Switching Capability Descriptor.
This brings the list of sub-TLVs of the TE Link TLV to: This brings the list of sub-TLVs of the TE Link TLV to:
Sub-TLV Type Length Name Sub-TLV Type Length Name
1 1 Link type 1 1 Link type
2 4 Link ID 2 4 Link ID
3 4 Local interface IP address 3 variable Local interface IP address
4 4 Remote interface IP address 4 variable Remote interface IP address
5 4 Traffic engineering metric 5 4 Traffic engineering metric
6 4 Maximum bandwidth 6 4 Maximum bandwidth
7 4 Maximum reservable bandwidth 7 4 Maximum reservable bandwidth
8 32 Unreserved bandwidth 8 32 Unreserved bandwidth
9 4 Resource class/color 9 4 Resource class/color
10 2 Interface MTU 11 4 Link Local Identifier
11 4 Outgoing Interface Identifier 12 4 Link Remote Identifier
12 4 Incoming Interface Identifier
14 4 Link Protection Type 14 4 Link Protection Type
16 variable Shared Risk Link Group
15 variable Interface Switching Capability Descriptor 15 variable Interface Switching Capability Descriptor
16 variable Shared Risk Link Group
32768-32772 - Reserved for Cisco-specific extensions 32768-32772 - Reserved for Cisco-specific extensions
5.1. Interface MTU 5.1. Link Local Identifier
The Interface MTU is a sub-TLV of the Link TLV with type 10, length
2, and value equal to the maximum size of an IP packet that can be
transmitted on this interface without being fragmented.
5.2. Outgoing Interface Identifier
An Outgoing Interface Identifier is a sub-TLV of the Link TLV with An Outgoing Interface Identifier is a sub-TLV of the Link TLV with
type 11, length 4, and value equal to the assigned identifier. type 11, and length 4.
5.3. Incoming Interface Identifier 5.2. Link Remote Identifier
An Incoming Interface Identifier is a sub-TLV of the Link TLV with An Incoming Interface Identifier is a sub-TLV of the Link TLV with
type 12, length 4, and value equal to the assigned identifier. type 12, and length 4.
5.4. Link Protection Type 5.3. Link Protection Type
The Link Protection Type is a sub-TLV of the Link TLV, with type 14, The Link Protection Type is a sub-TLV of the Link TLV, with type 14,
and length of four octets, the first of which is a bit vector and length of four octets, the first of which is a bit vector
describing the protection capabilities of the link. They are: describing the protection capabilities of the link. They are:
0x01 Extra Traffic 0x01 Extra Traffic
0x02 Unprotected 0x02 Unprotected
0x04 Shared 0x04 Shared
skipping to change at page 4, line 43 skipping to change at page 4, line 37
0x08 Dedicated 1:1 0x08 Dedicated 1:1
0x10 Dedicated 1+1 0x10 Dedicated 1+1
0x20 Enhanced 0x20 Enhanced
0x40 Reserved 0x40 Reserved
0x80 Reserved 0x80 Reserved
5.5. Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) 5.4. Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG)
The SRLG is a sub-TLV of the Link TLV with type 16. The length is the The SRLG is a sub-TLV of the Link TLV with type 16. The length is the
length of the list in octets. The value is an unordered list of 32 length of the list in octets. The value is an unordered list of 32
bit numbers that are the SRLGs that the link belongs to. The format bit numbers that are the SRLGs that the link belongs to. The format
is as shown below: of the value field is as shown below:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 16 | 4 * No. of SRLGs in link |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Shared Risk Link Group Value | | Shared Risk Link Group Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ............ | | ............ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Shared Risk Link Group Value | | Shared Risk Link Group Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
5.6. Interface Switching Capability Descriptor 5.5. Interface Switching Capability Descriptor
The Interface Switching Capability Descriptor is a sub-TLV of the The Interface Switching Capability Descriptor is a sub-TLV of the
Link TLV with type 15. The length is the length of value field in Link TLV with type 15. The length is the length of value field in
octets. The format of the value field is as shown below: octets. The format of the value field is as shown below:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Switching Cap | Encoding | Reserved | | Switching Cap | Encoding | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 6, line 21 skipping to change at page 6, line 19
51 Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC) 51 Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC)
100 Time-Division-Multiplex Capable (TDM) 100 Time-Division-Multiplex Capable (TDM)
150 Lambda-Switch Capable (LSC) 150 Lambda-Switch Capable (LSC)
200 Fiber-Switch Capable (FSC) 200 Fiber-Switch Capable (FSC)
The Encoding field contains one of the values specified in Section The Encoding field contains one of the values specified in Section
3.1.1 of [GMPLS-SIG]. 3.1.1 of [GMPLS-SIG].
Maximum LSP Bandwidth is encoded as a list of eight 4 octet fields in Maximum LSP Bandwidth is encoded as a list of eight 4 octet fields in
the IEEE floating point format, with priority 0 first and priority 7 the IEEE floating point format, with priority 0 first and priority 7
last. last. The units are bytes (not bits!) per second.
The content of the Switching Capability specific information field The content of the Switching Capability specific information field
depends on the value of the Switching Capability field. depends on the value of the Switching Capability field.
When the Switching Capability field is PSC-1, PSC-2, PSC-3, PSC-4, or When the Switching Capability field is PSC-1, PSC-2, PSC-3, or PSC-4,
L2SC, there is no specific information. the specific information includes Interface MTU and Minimum LSP
Bandwidth. The Interface MTU is encoded as a two octets integer. The
Minimum LSP Bandwidth is is encoded in a 4 octets field in the IEEE
floating point format. The units are bytes (not bits!) per second.
When the Switching Capability field is L2SC, there is no specific
information.
When the Switching Capability field is TDM, the specific information When the Switching Capability field is TDM, the specific information
includes Minimum LSP Bandwidth, which is is encoded in a 4 octets includes Minimum LSP Bandwidth, which is is encoded in a 4 octets
field in the IEEE floating point format. field in the IEEE floating point format. The units are bytes (not
bits!) per second.
When the Switching Capability field is LSC, there is no specific When the Switching Capability field is LSC, there is no specific
information. information.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
The sub-TLVs proposed in this document does not raise any new The sub-TLVs proposed in this document does not raise any new
security concerns. security concerns.
7. Acknowledgements 7. Acknowledgements
 End of changes. 

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.23, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/