Internet Draft Lou Berger (LabN) Updates: 3471, 3473, 3945 Category: Standards Track Don Fedyk (Nortel) Expiration Date: December 29, 2007 June 29, 2007 Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support For Metro Ethernet Forum and G.8011 User-Network Interface (UNI) draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-00.txt Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html This Internet-Draft will expire on December 29, 2007. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). Abstract This document describes a method for controlling Ethernet transport connections via a Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) based User-Network Interface (UNI). This document supports the types of Ethernet services that have been defined in the context of the Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) and International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Specifically, Ethernet private line service and Ethernet virtual private line service. Support for the MEF and ITU defined Services parameters are also covered. This document does not define or limit the underlying intra-domain or Internal NNI (I-NNI) technology used to support the UNI. Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 1] Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-00.txt June 29, 2007 Contents 1 Introduction .............................................. 3 1.1 Overview .................................................. 4 1.2 Conventions used in this document ......................... 6 2 Common Signaling Support .................................. 6 2.1 UNI Addressing ............................................ 6 2.2 Ethernet Endpoint (UNI) Identification .................... 6 2.2.1 Endpoint ID TLV ........................................... 7 2.2.2 Address Resolution ........................................ 8 2.2.3 Notify Message Format ..................................... 9 2.3 Connection Identification ................................. 9 2.3.1 Procedures ................................................ 10 2.4 Traffic Parameters ........................................ 10 2.5 Bundling and VLAN Identification .......................... 11 3 EPL Service ............................................... 11 3.1 Data Channel Switching ................................... 11 3.2 EPL Service Parameters .................................... 12 4 EVPL Service .............................................. 12 4.1 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST Object .............. 13 4.2 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object ...................... 13 4.2.1 EVPL Generalized Label Format ............................. 16 4.3 Other Label related Objects ............................... 16 4.4 Egress VLAN ID Control and VLAN ID preservation ........... 16 4.5 Single Call - Single LSP .................................. 17 4.6 Single Call - Multiple LSPs ............................... 17 5 IANA Considerations ....................................... 17 5.1 Endpoint ID Attributes TLV ................................ 17 5.2 Error Value: Routing Problem/Unknown Endpoint ............. 18 5.3 Data Channel Switching Type ............................... 18 5.4 8B/10B LSP Encoding ....................................... 18 5.5 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST Object .............. 19 5.6 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object ...................... 19 6 Security Considerations ................................... 20 7 References ................................................ 20 7.1 Normative References ...................................... 20 7.2 Informative References .................................... 21 8 Acknowledgments ........................................... 22 9 Contributor's Addresses ................................... 22 10 Full Copyright Statement .................................. 23 11 Intellectual Property ..................................... 23 Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 2] Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-00.txt June 29, 2007 Open issues: There are several open issues in this document that will be resolved in subsequent versions. The issues include: 1. Should a more generic name be used for the new "8B/10B" LSP Encoding Type. 2. This document assumes that [MEF-TRAFFIC] supports signaling of desired L2 control protocol processing, but this is not yet included in [MEF-TRAFFIC]. 3. This document should be divided into two documents: one that defines generic GMPLS support for Ethernet Services and the new DCSC Switching Type, and one that covers UNI specific topics. 1. Introduction [MEF6] and [G.8011] provide a parallel framework for defining network-oriented characteristics of Ethernet services in transport networks. The framework discusses general Ethernet connection characteristics, Ethernet User-Network Interfaces (UNIs) and Ethernet Network-Network Interfaces (NNIs). Within this framework, [G.8011.1] defines the Ethernet Private Line (EPL) service and [G.8011.2] defines the Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) service. [MEF6] covers both service types. [MEF10.1] defines service parameters and [MEF11] provides UNI requirements and framework. This document provides a method for GMPLS based control of the transport services defined in the above documents at the UNI network reference points. This document does not define or limit the underlying intra-domain or Internal NNI (I-NNI) technology used to support the UNI. This document makes use of the traffic parameters defined in [MEF-TRAFFIC]. The document is intended to be consistent with [GMPLS-PBBTE] and [GELS-FRAMEWORK]. The scope of this document covers Ethernet UNI applications, and it is intended to be consistent with the GMPLS overlay model presented in [RFC4208] and aligned with GMPLS Core Network signaling. The scope and reference model used in this document are represented in Figure 1, which is based on Figure 1 of [RFC4208]. Figure 1 shows two core networks, each containing two core-nodes. The core-nodes are labeled 'CN'. Connected to each CN is an edge- node. The edge-nodes are labeled 'EN'. Each EN supports Ethernet Networks and use Ethernet services provided by the core-nodes via a Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 3] Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-00.txt June 29, 2007 UNI. Two services are represented, one EPL and EVPL type service. Signaling within the core network is out of scope of this document and may include any number of technologies that support the overlay UNI services. Ethernet Ethernet Network UNI +----------+ +-----------+ UNI Network +---------+ | | | | +---------+ | +----+ | | +-----+ | | +-----+ | | +----+ | ------+ | | EPL | | | | | | | | EPL | | +------ ------+ EN +-+-----+--+ CN +---------+ CN +--+-----+-+ EN +------ | | | | +--+--| +---+ | | +--+-----+-+ | | | +----+ | | | +--+--+ | | | +--+--+ | | +----+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | +---------+ | | | | | | | | +---------+ | | | | | | | | +---------+ | | | | | | | | +---------+ | | | | +--+--+ | | | +--+--+ | | | | +----+ | | | | | | +-----+ | | | +----+ | ------+ +-+--+ | | CN +---------+ CN | | | | +------ ------+ EN +-+-----+--+ | | | | +--+-----+-+ EN +------ | | | |EVPL | +-----+ | | +-----+ |EVPL | | | | | +----+ | | | | | | +----+ | | | +----------+ |-----------+ | | +---------+ Core Network(s) +---------+ Ethernet Ethernet Network <---------------------------------------> Network Scope of this Document Legend: EN - Edge Node CN - Core Node Figure 1: Ethernet UNI Reference Model 1.1. Overview This document uses a largely common approach to supporting 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], [RFC4208], and [GMPLS-CALLS]. The document also expands expands the set of existing signaling parameters in a fashion consistent with existing GMPLS signaling. 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 Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 4] Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-00.txt June 29, 2007 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 [GMPLS-PBBTE] and [RFC3473], and unidirectional point-to- multipoint TE LSPs, see [GMPLS-PBBTE] and [RFC4875]. Support for P2P and MP2MP service 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 services are included in the scope of this document. There is no such clear correspondence between E-LAN/MP2MP service and GMPLS TE LSPs. Although it is possible to emulate the service using multiple P2P or P2MP TE LSPs. The definition of support for MP2MP service is left for future study and is not addressed in this document. [MEF11] defines multiple types of control for UNI Ethernet services. 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 is aimed at supporting 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 at a UNI. 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 both the local and remote UNIs. The approach taken in this document is to exclude the static class of attributes from signaling. Such attributes also will not be explicitly discussed in this document. The other class of attributes are communicated via signaling and will be reviewed in the sections below. The major attributes that will be supported in signaling include: - UNI endpoint identifiers - Connection identifiers - Traffic parameters (see [MEF-TRAFFIC]) - Bundling / VLAN IDs map (EVPL only) - VLAN ID Preservation (EVPL only) Common procedures used to signal Ethernet connections are described in Section 2 of this document. Procedures related to EPL services are described in Section 3. Procedures related to EVPL services are described in Section 4. Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 5] Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-00.txt June 29, 2007 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 UNI signaled control of Ethernet connections as defined in [MEF11], [G.8011.1] and [G.8011.2]. Except as specifically modified in this document, the procedures related to the processing of RSVP objects is not modified by this document. The relevant procedures in existing documents, such as [RFC3473] and [RFC4208], MUST be followed in all cases not explicitly described in this document. 2.1. UNI Addressing Ethernet connections controlled via the mechanisms defined in this document MUST use the addressing and other procedures defined in [RFC4208]. Of note, this includes the use of the egress edge-node's IP address in the end-point address field in the SESSION object. See [OIF-MEF-UNI] for an alternate approach. One issue that presents itself with the addressing approach taken in [RFC4208] is that an ingress edge-node may not receive the egress edge-node's IP address as part of the management, or other, request that results in the initiation of a new Ethernet connection. This case is covered as described in Section 7.2 of [GMPLS-CALLS] and as modified below in Section 2.2.2. 2.2. Ethernet Endpoint (UNI) Identification Ethernet endpoint (UNI) identifiers, as they are defined in [G.8011] and [MEF10.1], differ significantly from the identifiers used by GMPLS. Specifically, the Ethernet endpoint (UNI) identifiers are character based as apposed to the GMPLS norm of being IP address based. The approach taken by this document to address this disparity leverages the solution used for connection identification, see next section and [GMPLS-CALLS], and an LSP attributes object, see [RFC4420]. The solution makes use of the [GMPLS-CALLS] short call Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 6] Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-00.txt June 29, 2007 ID, and supports the Ethernet endpoint identifier much like [GMPLS- CALLS] supports the long call ID. That is, the SENDER_TEMPLATE and SESSION objects carry IP addresses and a short call ID, and both long identifiers are carried in attributes objects. As with the long call ID, the Ethernet endpoint identifier is typically only relevant at the ingress and egress nodes. (See Section 2.2.2 for the exception case.) As defined below, the Ethernet endpoint identifier is carried in the LSP_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 [GMPLS-CALLS]. This processing requires a change to Notify message format to allow the inclusion of the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object. 2.2.1. Endpoint ID TLV The Endpoint ID TLV follows the Attributes TLV format defined in [RFC4420]. The Endpoint ID TLV has uses the Type value of TBA (by IANA). The TLV has the following format: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type (TBA) | Length (variable) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Endpoint ID | | ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ See [RFC4420] for a description of the Type and Length fields. Note that per [RFC4420], the Length field is set to the unpadded length of the Endpoint ID field. Endpoint ID The Endpoint ID field is a variable length field that carries an endpoint identifier, see [MEF10.1] and [G.8011]. This field MUST be null padded as defined in [RFC4420]. 2.2.1.1. Procedures The use of the Endpoint ID TLV is required during call management. When a call is established or torndown per [GMPLS-CALLS], an Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 7] Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-00.txt June 29, 2007 LSP_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 [GMPLS-CALLS]. An LSP_ATTRIBUTES object containing an Endpoint ID TLV MAY be included in the signaling messages of an LSP (connection) associated with an established call. Such objects are processed according to the [RFC4420]. 2.2.2. Address Resolution As mentioned above, it is possible for the ingress edge-node to not have the egress edge-node's IP address when initiating an Ethernet connection. This presents an issue as the egress edge-node's IP address is carried in the SESSION object. This case is handled leveraging the approach described in Section 7.2 of [GMPLS-CALLS] to address call ID assignment by the first core-node. When an edge-node initiates an Ethernet Connection and it has the egress Ethernet endpoint identifier, but does not have its IP address, the edge-node MUST create a Notify message as described in [GMPLS-CALLS]. The Notify message MUST include the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object with the Endpoint ID TLV defined in the prior section. The tunnel end point address field of the SESSION object in the Notify message MUST be set to zero (0). The message MUST be addressed and sent to an address associated with the first core-node. When a network-node, i.e., the node providing the network side of the UNI receives a Notify message with the tunnel end point address field of the SESSION object set to zero, it MUST locate the Endpoint ID TLV in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object. If the object or TLV are not present, the node MUST discard the message. In this case, a Message ID Acknowledgment MUST NOT be sent for the Notify message. When the Endpoint ID TLV is located, the node MUST map the Endpoint ID into the egress edge-node's IP address. If the node is unable to obtain the egress address, it MUST issue an error response Notify messages according to Section 6.2.2. of [GMPLS-CALLS]. The Error code and value SHOULD be "Routing Problem/Unknown Endpoint." (To be assigned by IANA). When the node is able to obtain the egress address, the end-point address field of the SESSION object MUST be set to the obtained address, and the Notify message should be sent according to the Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 8] Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-00.txt June 29, 2007 standard processing defined in [GMPLS-CALLS]. The downstream nodes will then process the Notify according to standard processing rules. When the ingress receives the response Notify message, it SHOULD identify the call based on the Endpoint ID TLV and, when not set to zero on the corresponding setup Notify message, the short and long Call IDs. The end-point address field of the SESSION object carried in the response Notify message will include the egress' IP address. This returned address MUST be used in all subsequent messages associated with the Ethernet connection. Note that the procedure described in this section MAY be used when the Call IDs are generated by the initiating UNI or by the first core-node. 2.2.3. Notify Message Format The Notify message format is extended based on the format defined in [GMPLS-CALLS] to allow for the use of the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object as defined in this document. The LSP_ATTRIBUTES object MUST be present when the UNI defined in this document is supported, and SHOULD follow the SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object. The format of the Notify Message is updated as follows: ::= see [GMPLS-CALLS] ::= [ ] [ ... ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ | ] ::= see [RFC3473] ::= see [RFC3473] 2.3. Connection Identification UNI signaling for Ethernet connections follows the procedures defined in [GMPLS-CALLS]. In particular the Call related mechanisms are reused to support UNI endpoint identification. In the context of Ethernet connections, a call only exists when one or more LSPs (connections in [GMPLS-CALLS] terms) are present. An LSP will always be established within the context of a call and, typically, only one Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 9] Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-00.txt June 29, 2007 LSP will be used per call. See Section 4 for the case where more than one LSP may exist within a call. 2.3.1. Procedures Ethernet connections established according to this document MUST treat the Ethernet (virtual) connection identifier as the long "Call identifier (ID)", described in [GMPLS-CALLS]. The short Call ID MUST be used as described in [GMPLS-CALLS]. 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 [GMPLS-CALLS]. Any node that supports Ethernet connections MUST be able to accept and process call setups per [GMPLS-CALLS]. Once a Call is established, the initiator SHOULD establish at least one Ethernet LSP per [GMPLS-CALLS]. LSP management, including removal and addition, then follows [GMPLS-CALLS]. When the last LSP associated with a Call is removed, the Call SHOULD be torndown per the procedures in [GMPLS-CALLS]. Note, the procedures defined in Section 7.2 of [GMPLS-CALLS] provide support for allocation of Call IDs by the first core-node rather than by the initiating edge-node. 2.4. Traffic Parameters Several types of service attributes are carried in the traffic parameters defined in [MEF-TRAFFIC]. These parameters are carried in the FLOWSPEC and TSPEC objects as discussed in [MEF-TRAFFIC]. The service attributes that are carried are: - Bandwidth Profile - VLAN CoS Preservation - L2 Control Protocol Processing [Note: Modification to MEF-TRAFFIC under discussion] Ethernet connections established according to this document MUST use the traffic parameters defined in [MEF-TRAFFIC] in the FLOWSPEC and TSPEC objects. Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 10] Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-00.txt June 29, 2007 2.5. Bundling and VLAN Identification The control of bundling and listing of VLAN identifiers is only supported for EVPL services. EVPL service specific details are provided in Section 4. 3. EPL Service Both [MEF6] and [G.8011.1] define an Ethernet Private Line (EPL) services. In the words of [G.8011.1], EPL services carry "Ethernet characteristic information over dedicated bandwidth, point-to-point connections, provided by SDH, ATM, MPLS, PDH, ETY or OTH server layer networks." [G.8011.1] defines two types of Ethernet Private Line (EPL) services. Both types present a service where all data presented on a port is transported to the corresponding connect port. The types differ in that EPL type 1 service operates at the MAC frame layer, while EPL type 2 service operates at the line (8B/10B) encoding layer. [MEF6] only defines one type of EPL service, and it matches [G.8011.1] EPL type 1 service. Support for both types of EPL services are detailed below. 3.1. Data Channel Switching Both types of EPL services represent a form of switching that is not well represented in the switching types defined in [RFC3945] and [RFC3471]. Current switching types support switching at the packet (PSC), frame (L2SC), time-slot (TDM), frequency (LSC) and fiber (FSC) granularity. EPL service supports switching on a per data channel basis. In EPL specific terms, EPL represents a service where all data received on an ingress port is switched through the network to an egress port. While there are similarities between this level of switching and the "opaque single wavelength" case described in Section 3.5 of [RFC4202], EPL service support is not limited to the optical switching technology implied by the LSC type. Therefore, a new switching type is defined to support EPL service. The new Switching Type is called Data Channel Switching Capable (DCSC). DCSC interfaces are able to support switching of the whole digital channel presented on single channel interfaces. Interfaces that inherently support multiple channels, e.g., WDM and channelized TDM interfaces, are specifically excluded from this type. Any interface that can be represented as a single digital channel are included. Examples include concatenated TDM and 8B/10B encoded interfaces. Framed interfaces may also be included when they support switching on an interface granularity. Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 11] Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-00.txt June 29, 2007 DCSC is represented in signaling, see [RFC3471], using the value TBA (by IANA). Port labels, as defined in [RFC3471], SHOULD be used on interfaces where the LSP is signaled using the DCSC Switching Type. 3.2. EPL Service Parameters GMPLS support for the EPL service types only differ in the LSP Encoding Type used. The LSP Encoding Type used for each are: EPL Service LSP Encoding Type ----------- ----------------- Type 1/MEF Ethernet (2) [RFC3471] Type 2 8B/10B* (TBA by IANA) (*) Note: type name may change in a subsequent version of this draft. The other LSP parameters specific to EPL Service are: Parameter Value -------------- ----- Switching Type DCSC (See Section 3.1) G-PID Ethernet (33) [RFC3471] The parameters defined in this section MUST be used when establishing and controlling EPL service type Ethernet connections. The procedures defined in Section 2 and the other procedures defined in [RFC3473] for the establishment and management of bidirectional LSPs MUST be followed when establishing and controlling EPL service type Ethernet connections. 4. EVPL Service EVPL service is defined within the context of both [G.8011.2] and [MEF6]. An EVPL allows for multiple Ethernet connections per UNI, each of which supports a specific set of VLAN IDs. The UNI service attributes identify different forms of EVPL services, e.g., bundled or unbundled. Independent of the different forms, all EVPL Ethernet connections are signaled using the same mechanisms to communicate the one or more VLAN IDs associated with a particular Ethernet connection. Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 12] Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-00.txt June 29, 2007 As with EPL services, EVPL service related connections are signaled based on the procedures defined in Section 2 and the procedures defined in [RFC3473]. The relevant [RFC3471] parameter values that MUST be used for EVPL connections are: Parameter Value -------------- ----- Switching Type L2SC (51) LSP Encoding Type Ethernet (2) G-PID Ethernet (33) Bundled EVPL services also require the use of a service specific Label and related label object types. The new EVPL related label and the label type objects are defined below. Non-bundled EVPL services also use the new label and label type objects. A notable implication of bundled EVPL services and carrying multiple VLAN IDs is that a Path message may grow to be larger than a single (fragmented or non- fragmented) IP packet. The basic approach to solving this is to use a single call, see Section 2.3, and multiple LSPs. The specifics of this approach are describe below in Section 4.4. 4.1. Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST Object The Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST object is used to indicate that the Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object is to be used on the associated LSP. The format of the Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST object is the same as the Generalized LABEL_REQUEST object and uses of C-Type of TBA. The Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST object MUST be used with LSPs that are being established to support an EVPL service. 4.2. Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object EVPL service requires support for the communication of one or more VLAN IDs. In order to enable such communication, a new LABEL object is defined. The new object is called the Generalized Channel_Set LABEL object. The format of the new object is based on the LABEL_SET object defined in [RFC3473]. It differs from the the LABEL_SET object in that the full set may be represented in a single object rather than the multiple objects required by the [RFC3473] LABEL_SET object. The object MUST be used on LSPs that use the Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST object. The object is processed per [RFC3473]. Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 13] Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-00.txt June 29, 2007 The format of the Generalized Channel_Set LABEL object is: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Length | Class-Num (16)| C-Type (TBA) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Channel_Set Sub-Object 1 | | ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ : : : : : : +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Channel_Set Sub-Object N | | ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The Channel_Set Sub-Object size is measured in bytes and MUST always be a multiple of 4, and at least 4, and has the following format: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Action | Num Subchannels | Label Type | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Subchannel 1 | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ... | : +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ : : : : : : : : : : : : : +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Subchannel N | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ... | Padding | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Action: 8 bits See [RFC3471] for definition of actions. Range actions SHOULD be used when possible to minimize the size of the Channel_Set LABEL Object. Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 14] Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-00.txt June 29, 2007 Number of Subchannels: 10 bits Indicates the number of subchannels carried in the sub-object. When the number of subchannels required exceeds the limit of the field, i.e., 1024, multiple Sub-Objects MUST be used. A value of zero (0) has special meaning and MUST ONLY be used in the UPSTREAM_LABEL object. A value of zero (0) is used in an UPSTREAM_LABEL object to indicate that the subchannel(s) used in the upstream direction MUST match the subchannel(s) carried in the LABEL object. When value of zero (0) is used, no Subchannels are included in the Channel_Set Sub-Object and only one Channel_Set Sub-Object may be present. Label Type: 14 bits See [RFC3473] for a description of this field. Subchannel: Variable See [RFC3471] for a description of this field. Note that this field may not be 32 bit aligned. Padding: Variable Padding is used to ensure that the length of a Channel_Set Sub- Object meets the multiple of 4 byte size requirement. The field is only required when the Subchannel field is not 32 bit aligned and the number of included Subchannel fields result in the Sub-Object not being 32 bit aligned. The Padding field MUST be included when the number of bits represented in all the Subchannel fields included in a Generalized Channel_Set Sub-Object result in the Sub-Object not being 32 bit aligned. When present, the Padding field MUST have a length that results in the Sub-Object being 32 bit aligned. When present, the Padding field MUST be set to a zero (0) value on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt. These bits SHOULD be passed through unmodified by transit nodes. For LSPs supporting EVPL service, the Label Type field MUST be set to indicate a generalized label (2). Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 15] Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-00.txt June 29, 2007 4.2.1. EVPL Generalized Label Format LSPs used to support EVPL services MUST use the EVPL Generalized Label in the Subchannel field of the Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object. The format for the Generalized Label used with EVPL services is: 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Rsvd | VLAN ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Reserved: 4 bits This field is reserved. It MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt. These bits SHOULD be pass through unmodified by transit nodes. VLAN ID: 12 bits A VLAN identifier. 4.3. Other Label related Objects The previous section introduces a new LABEL object. As such the formats of the other label related objects are also impacted. Processing of these objects are not modified and remain per their respective specifications. The other label related objects are defined in [RFC3473] and include: - SUGGESTED_LABEL object - LABEL_SET object - ACCEPTABLE_LABEL_SET object - UPSTREAM_LABEL object - RECOVERY_LABEL object 4.4. Egress VLAN ID Control and VLAN ID preservation Per [MEF6], the mapping of the single VLAN ID used at the ingress UNI to a different VLAN ID at the egress UNI is allowed for EVPL services that do not support both bundling and VLAN ID preservation. Such a mapping MUST be requested and signaled based on the explicit label control mechanism defined in [RFC4208], and not the mechanism define in [RFC3473] and clarified in [RFC4003]. Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 16] Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-00.txt June 29, 2007 4.5. Single Call - Single LSP For simplicity in management, a single LSP SHOULD be used for each EVPL connection whose Path and Resv messages fit within a single unfragmented IP packet. This allows the reuse of all standard LSP modification procedures. Of particular note is the modification of the VLAN IDs associated with the Ethernet connection. Specifically, when a single LSP is used to support an EVPL connection, make-before- break procedures, see [RFC3209], SHOULD be used to modify the Channel_Set LABEL object. 4.6. Single Call - Multiple LSPs Multiple LSPs MAY be used to support an EVPL service connection. All such LSPs MUST be established within the same call and follow call related procedures, see Section 2.2. The primary purpose of multiple LSPs is to support the case where the related objects result in a Path message being larger than a single unfragmented IP packet. When using multiple LSPs, all LSPs associated with the same call / EVPL connection MUST be signaled with the same LSP objects with the exception of the SENDER_TEMPLATE, SESSION and label related objects. 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 the make-before-break procedures mentioned in the previous section. 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 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. 5.1. Endpoint ID Attributes TLV Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the assignment in the "Attributes TLV Space" section of the "RSVP TE Parameters" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te- parameters: Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 17] Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-00.txt June 29, 2007 Allowed on Allowed on Type Name LSP_ATTRIBUTES LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Reference ---- ----------- -------------- ----------------------- --------- 2* Endpoint ID Yes Yes [This document] (*) Suggested value. 5.2. Error Value: Routing Problem/Unknown Endpoint Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the assignment in the "Error Codes and Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes" section of the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters: Error Code Meaning 24 Routing Problem [RFC3209] This Error Code has the following globally-defined Error Value sub-codes: 28* = Unknown Endpoint [This document] (*) Suggested value. 5.3. Data Channel Switching Type Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the assignment in the "Switching Types" section of the "GMPLS Signaling Parameters" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig- parameters: Value Type Reference ----- --------------------------- --------- 125* Data Channel Switching Capable (DCSC) [This document] (*) Suggested value. 5.4. 8B/10B LSP Encoding Upon approval of this document, the 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: Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 18] Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-00.txt June 29, 2007 Value Type Reference ----- --------------------------- --------- 14* 8B/10B [This document] (*) Suggested value. 5.5. Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST Object Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the assignment in the "Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types" section of the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters. A new class type for the existing LABEL_REQUEST Object class number (19) with the following definition: Class Types or C-Types: 5* Generalized Channel_Set [This document] (*) Suggested value. 5.6. Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the assignment in the "Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types" section of the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters. A new class type for the existing RSVP_LABEL Object class number (16) with the following definition: Class Types or C-Types: 4* Generalized Channel_Set [This document] (*) Suggested value. Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 19] Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-00.txt June 29, 2007 6. Security Considerations This document introduces new message object formats for use in GMPLS signaling [RFC3473]. It does not introduce any new signaling messages, nor change the relationship between LSRs that are adjacent in the control plane. As such, this document introduces no additional security considerations. See [RFC3473] for relevant security considerations. 7. References 7.1. Normative References [GMPLS-CALLS] Papadimitriou, D., Farrel, A. "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions", draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-call, Work in progress, January 2007. [MEF-TRAFFIC] Papadimitriou, D., "MEF Ethernet Traffic Parameters," draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-traffic-parameters-02.txt, Work in progress, June 2007. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels," RFC 2119. [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V. and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. [RFC3471] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, January 2003. [RFC3473] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling - Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. [RFC3945] Mannie, E., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004. Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 20] Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-00.txt June 29, 2007 [RFC4208] Swallow, G., et al. "Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) User-Network Interface (UNI): Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Support for the Overlay Model", RFC 4208, October 2005. [RFC4420] Farrel, A., et al. "Encoding of Attributes for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Establishment Using Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 4420, February 2006. 7.2. Informative References [G.8011] ITU-T G.8011/Y.1307, "Ethernet over Transport Ethernet services framework", August 2004. [G.8011.1] ITU-T G.G.8011.1/Y.1307.1, "Ethernet private line service", August 2004. [G.8011.2] ITU-T G.8011.2/Y.1307.2, "Ethernet virtual private line service", September 2005. [GELS-FRAMEWORK] Papadimitriou, P., et al "A Framework for GMPLS-controlled Ethernet Label Switching", Work in progress, February 2006. [GMPLS-PBBTE] Fedyk, D., et al "GMPLS control of Ethernet" , draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-01.txt, Work in progress, June 2007. [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. [OIF-MEF-UNI] Optical Internetworking Forum, "Proposed Implementation Guide for use of OIF UNI signaling to support MEF UNI Type 3", oif2006.281.04, April 2007. Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 21] Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-00.txt June 29, 2007 [RFC4003] Berger, L., "GMPLS Signaling Procedure for Egress Control", RFC 4003, February 2005. [RFC4202] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005. [RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Papadimitriou, P., Yasukawa, S., Eds, "Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875, May 2007. 8. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Evelyne Roch and Stephen Shew for their valuable comments. 9. Contributor's Addresses Lou Berger LabN Consulting, L.L.C. Phone: +1-301-468-9228 Email: lberger@labn.net Dimitri Papadimitriou Alcatel Lucent Francis Wellesplein 1, B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium Phone: +32 3 240-8491 Email: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel-lucent.be Don Fedyk Nortel Networks 600 Technology Park Drive Billerica, MA, 01821 Phone: +1-978-288-3041 Email: dwfedyk@nortel.com Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 22] Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-00.txt June 29, 2007 10. Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 11. Intellectual Property The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- ipr@ietf.org. Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA). Berger, et al Standards Track [Page 23] Generated on: Fri Jun 29 14:02:42 EDT 2007