draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-scsi-04.txt   rfc8258.txt 
TEAS Working Group D. Ceccarelli Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) D. Ceccarelli
Internet-Draft Ericsson Request for Comments: 8258 Ericsson
Intended status: Standards Track L. Berger Category: Standards Track L. Berger
Expires: March 3, 2018 LabN Consulting, L.L.C. ISSN: 2070-1721 LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
August 30, 2017 October 2017
Generalized Interface Switching Capability Descriptor - Switching Generalized SCSI: A Generic Structure
Capability Specific Information for Interface Switching Capability Descriptor (ISCD)
draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-scsi-04 Switching Capability Specific Information (SCSI)
Abstract Abstract
This document defines a generic information structure for information This document defines a generic information structure for information
carried in routing protocol Interface Switching Capability Descriptor carried in routing protocol Interface Switching Capability Descriptor
(ISCD) Switching Capability Specific Information (SCSI) fields. This (ISCD) Switching Capability Specific Information (SCSI) fields. This
"Generalized SCSI" can be used with routing protocols that define "Generalized SCSI" can be used with routing protocols that define
GMPLS ISCDs, and any specific technology. This document does not GMPLS ISCDs and any specific technology. This document does not
modify any existing technology specific formats and is defined for modify any existing technology-specific formats and is defined for
use in conjunction with new GMPLS Switching Capability types. The use in conjunction with new GMPLS Switching Capability types. The
context for this document is Generalized MPLS, and the reader is context for this document is Generalized MPLS, and the reader is
expected to be familiar with the GMPLS architecture and associate expected to be familiar with the GMPLS architecture and associated
protocol standards. protocol standards.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This is an Internet Standards Track document.
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 3, 2018. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8258.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 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 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Generalized SCSI Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Generalized SCSI Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The context for this document is Generalized MPLS, and the reader is The context for this document is Generalized MPLS, and the reader is
expected to be familiar with the GMPLS architecture, associate expected to be familiar with the GMPLS architecture, associated
terminology and protocol standards. Notably, but not limited to, terminology, and protocol standards: notably, but not limited to,
[RFC3945], [RFC4202], [RFC4203] and [RFC5307]. [RFC3945], [RFC4202], [RFC4203] and [RFC5307].
The Interface Switching Capability Descriptor (ISCD) [RFC4202] allows The Interface Switching Capability Descriptor (ISCD) [RFC4202] allows
routing protocols such as OSPF and ISIS to carry technology specific routing protocols such as OSPF and ISIS to carry technology-specific
information in the the Switching Capability-specific information information in the Switching Capability-specific information field,
(SCSI) field, see [RFC4203] and [RFC5307]. The format of an SCSI see [RFC4203] and [RFC5307]. The format of an SCSI field is dictated
field is dictated by the specific technology being represented as by the specific technology being represented as indicated by the ISCD
indicated by the ISCD Switching Capability (SC) type field. Existing Switching Capability field. Existing Switching Capabilities are
Switching Capabilities are managed by IANA in the Switching Types managed by IANA in the "Switching Types" registry
registry [1] and the related "IANA-GMPLS-TC-MIB" definitions. <http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters> and the
related "IANA-GMPLS-TC-MIB" definitions.
[RFC7138] introduced a "sub-TLV" structure to its technology specific [RFC7138] introduced a "sub-TLV" structure to its technology-specific
SCSI field. The Sub-Type-Length-Value (TLV) based approach allows SCSI field. The sub-TLV-based approach allows for greater
for greater flexibility in the structure, ordering, and ability to flexibility in the structure, ordering, and ability to support
support extensions of the SC (technology) specific format. This Sub- extensions of the SC-specific format. This Sub-TLV approach is also
TLV approach is also used in [RFC7688]. used in [RFC7688].
This document generalizes this approach and defines a new generalized This document generalizes this approach and defines a new generalized
SCSI field format for use by future specific technologies and SCSI field format for use by future specific technologies and
Switching Capability types. The generalized SCSI carries SCSI-TLVs Switching Capability types. The generalized SCSI carries SCSI-TLVs
that may be defined within the scope of a specific technology, or that may be defined within the scope of a specific technology or
shared across multiple technologies (e.g., shared across multiple technologies (e.g., [AVAIL-EXT]). This
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension]). This document also document also establishes a registry for SCSI-TLV definitions that
establishes a registry for SCSI-TLV definitions that may be shared may be shared across multiple technologies.
across multiple technologies.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
[RFC2119]. BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
The reader is expected to be familiar with GMPLS terminology, e.g. as The reader is expected to be familiar with GMPLS terminology (e.g.,
found in [RFC3945], as well as the terminology used in [RFC4202], as found in [RFC3945]) as well as the terminology used in [RFC4202],
[RFC4203] and [RFC5307]. [RFC4203], and [RFC5307].
3. Generalized SCSI Formats 3. Generalized SCSI Formats
The Generalized SCSI is composed of zero or more variable length The Generalized SCSI is composed of zero or more variable-length TLV
type-length-value fields which are each called a SCSI-TLV. There are fields each of which is called an "SCSI-TLV". There are no specific
no specific size restrictions on these SCSI-TLV. Size and other size restrictions on these SCSI-TLVs. Size and other formatting
formatting restrictions may be imposed by the routing protocol ISCD restrictions may be imposed by the routing protocol ISCD field (refer
field, refer to [RFC4203] and [RFC5307]. Please also refer to to [RFC4203] and [RFC5307]). Please refer to [RFC3630] for the
[RFC3630] for the treatment of malformed Link TLVs. treatment of malformed Link TLVs.
The SCSI-TLV format is: The SCSI-TLV format is:
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 | Length | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
... Value ... ... Value ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: TLV format Figure 1: TLV Format
Type (2 octets): Type (2 octets):
This field indicates the type and structure of the information This field indicates the type and structure of the information
contained in the Value field. contained in the Value field.
Length (2 octets): Length (2 octets):
This field MUST be set to the size, in octets (bytes), of the This field MUST be set to the size, in octets (bytes), of the
Value field. The value of the field MUST be zero or divisible by Value field. The value of the field MUST be zero or divisible by
4. Note that this implies that the Value field can be omitted or 4. Note that this implies that the Value field can be omitted or
contain padding. contain padding.
Value (variable): Value (variable):
A variable length field, formatted according to the definition A variable-length field, formatted according to the definition
indicated by value of the Type field. This field can be omitted indicated by value of the Type field. This field can be omitted
for certain types. for certain types.
4. Procedures 4. Procedures
The ISCD can include a Generalized SCSI when advertising technologies The ISCD can include a Generalized SCSI when advertising technologies
whose Switching Capability definition references this document. The whose Switching Capability definition references this document. The
corollary of this is that the Generalized SCSI MUST NOT be used for corollary of this is that the Generalized SCSI MUST NOT be used for
ISCDs of technologies whose Switching Capability definition do not ISCDs of technologies whose Switching Capability definition do not
reference this document. reference this document.
The Generalized SCSI MAY contain a sequence of zero or more SCSI- The Generalized SCSI MAY contain a sequence of zero or more SCSI-
TLVs. Sub-TLV parsing (format) errors, such as an underrun or TLVs. Sub-TLV parsing (format) errors MUST be treated as a malformed
overrun, MUST be treated as a malformed ISCD. SCSI-TLVs MUST be ISCD. SCSI-TLVs MUST be processed in the order received and, if re-
processed in the order received and, if re-originated, ordering MUST originated, ordering MUST be preserved. Unknown SCSI-TLVs MUST be
be preserved. Unknown SCSI-TLVs MUST be ignored and transparently ignored and transparently processed, i.e., re-originated when
processed, i.e., re-originated when appropriate. Processing related appropriate. Processing related to multiple SCSI-TLVs of the same
to multiple SCSI-TLVs of the same type may be further refined based type may be further refined based on the definition on the type.
on the definition on the type.
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce any security issue beyond those This document does not introduce any security issue beyond those
discussed in [RFC4203] and [RFC5307]. As discussed there, the discussed in [RFC4203] and [RFC5307]. As discussed there, the
information carried in ISCDs are not used for SPF computation or information carried in ISCDs is not used for Shortest Path First
normal routing and the extensions here defined do not have direct (SPF) computation or normal routing, and the extensions here defined
effect on IP routing. Tampering with GMPLS TE LSAs may have an do not have a direct effect on IP routing. Tampering with GMPLS
effect on the underlying transport network. Mechanisms such as Traffic Engineering (TE) Link State Advertisements (LSAs) may have an
[RFC2154] and [RFC5304] to protect the transmission of this effect on the underlying transport network. Mechanisms such as those
information are suggested. described in [RFC2154] and [RFC5304] to protect the transmission of
this information are suggested.
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
This document defines a new SCSI-TLV that is carried in the SCSI This document defines a new SCSI-TLV that is carried in the SCSI
field of the ISCDs defined in [RFC4203] and [RFC5307]. The SCSI-TLV field of the ISCDs defined in [RFC4203] and [RFC5307]. The SCSI-TLV
includes a 16-bit type identifier (the Type field). The same Type includes a 16-bit type identifier (the Type field). The same Type
field values are applicable to the new SCSI-TLV. field values are applicable to the new SCSI-TLV.
IANA is requested to create and maintain a new registry, the IANA has created and will maintain a new registry, the "Generalized
"Generalized SCSI (Switching Capability Specific Information) TLVs SCSI (Switching Capability Specific Information) TLV Types" registry
Types" registry under the the "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label under the "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters" registry. Signaling Parameters" registry.
The definition of the new registry is as follows: The initial contents of this registry are as follows:
Value SCSI-TLV Switching Type Reference Value SCSI-TLV Switching Type Reference
--------- ----------------------- -------------- --------- --------- ----------------------- -------------- ---------
0 Reserved [This ID] 0 Reserved [RFC8258]
1-65535 Unassigned (value list) [This ID] 1-65535 Unassigned (value list)
New allocation requests to this registry must indicate the value or New allocation requests to this registry must indicate the value or
values to be used in the Switching Type column. values to be used in the Switching Type column.
The registry should be established with registration policies of The registry should be established with registration policies of
"Specification Required", see [RFC5226]. "Specification Required", see [RFC8126].
REMOVE THIS AFTER PUBLICATION: The designated expert will be
appointed by the Routing AD. It is suggested to appoint any current
TEAS WG chair.
7. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel and Julien Meuric for
the careful review and suggestions. Thomas Heide Clausen provided
useful comments as part of the Routing Directorate review.
8. References 7. References
8.1. Normative References 7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering [RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003, <https://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003,
editor.org/info/rfc3630>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3630>.
[RFC4202] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing Extensions [RFC4202] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing Extensions
in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4202, DOI 10.17487/RFC4202, October 2005, (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, DOI 10.17487/RFC4202, October 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4202>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4202>.
[RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in [RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4203, DOI 10.17487/RFC4203, October 2005, (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, DOI 10.17487/RFC4203, October 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4203>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4203>.
[RFC5307] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "IS-IS Extensions [RFC5307] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "IS-IS Extensions
in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 5307, DOI 10.17487/RFC5307, October 2008, (GMPLS)", RFC 5307, DOI 10.17487/RFC5307, October 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5307>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5307>.
8.2. Informative References [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension] 7.2. Informative References
[AVAIL-EXT]
Long, H., Ye, M., Mirsky, G., D'Alessandro, A., and H. Long, H., Ye, M., Mirsky, G., D'Alessandro, A., and H.
Shah, "OSPF-TE Link Availability Extension for Links with Shah, "OSPF-TE Link Availability Extension for Links with
Variable Discrete Bandwidth", draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf- Variable Discrete Bandwidth", Work in Progress,
availability-extension-10 (work in progress), August 2017. draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension-10,
August 2017.
[RFC2154] Murphy, S., Badger, M., and B. Wellington, "OSPF with [RFC2154] Murphy, S., Badger, M., and B. Wellington, "OSPF with
Digital Signatures", RFC 2154, DOI 10.17487/RFC2154, June Digital Signatures", RFC 2154, DOI 10.17487/RFC2154, June
1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2154>. 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2154>.
[RFC3945] Mannie, E., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label [RFC3945] Mannie, E., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3945, October 2004, <https://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC3945, October 2004,
editor.org/info/rfc3945>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3945>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC5304] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic [RFC5304] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 5304, DOI 10.17487/RFC5304, October Authentication", RFC 5304, DOI 10.17487/RFC5304, October
2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5304>. 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5304>.
[RFC7138] Ceccarelli, D., Ed., Zhang, F., Belotti, S., Rao, R., and [RFC7138] Ceccarelli, D., Ed., Zhang, F., Belotti, S., Rao, R., and
J. Drake, "Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF for J. Drake, "Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF for
GMPLS Control of Evolving G.709 Optical Transport GMPLS Control of Evolving G.709 Optical Transport
Networks", RFC 7138, DOI 10.17487/RFC7138, March 2014, Networks", RFC 7138, DOI 10.17487/RFC7138, March 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7138>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7138>.
[RFC7688] Lee, Y., Ed. and G. Bernstein, Ed., "GMPLS OSPF [RFC7688] Lee, Y., Ed. and G. Bernstein, Ed., "GMPLS OSPF
Enhancement for Signal and Network Element Compatibility Enhancement for Signal and Network Element Compatibility
for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks", RFC 7688, for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks", RFC 7688,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7688, November 2015, <https://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC7688, November 2015,
editor.org/info/rfc7688>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7688>.
8.3. URIs [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[1] http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters/gmpls-sig- Acknowledgments
parameters.xml#gmpls-sig-parameters-3
The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel and Julien Meuric for
the careful review and suggestions. Thomas Heide Clausen provided
useful comments as part of the Routing Directorate review.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Daniele Ceccarelli Daniele Ceccarelli
Ericsson Ericsson
Torshamnsgatan 21 Torshamnsgatan 21
Kista - Stockholm Kista - Stockholm
Sweden Sweden
Email: daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com Email: daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com
 End of changes. 35 change blocks. 
114 lines changed or deleted 107 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/