idnits 2.17.1 draft-loa-mpls-cap-set-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Looks like you're using RFC 2026 boilerplate. This must be updated to follow RFC 3978/3979, as updated by RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard == It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0 form feeds but 7 pages Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) ** The document seems to lack separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Line 117 has weird spacing: '...otocols devel...' == Line 139 has weird spacing: '...odes of label...' == Line 185 has weird spacing: '...odes of label...' == Line 198 has weird spacing: '...odes of label...' -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (October 1999) is 8952 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) -- Missing reference section? '1' on line 253 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? '2' on line 221 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? '3' on line 238 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? '4' on line 220 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? '5' on line 245 looks like a reference Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 6 warnings (==), 7 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 MPLS WG Loa Andersson 2 Internet Draft Bilel Jamoussi 3 Expiration Date: February 2000 Nortel Networks Corp. 5 Muckai Girish 6 SBC Technology Resources Inc. 8 Tom Worster 9 Nokia 11 October 1999 13 MPLS Capability Set 15 draft-loa-mpls-cap-set-01.txt 17 Status of this Memo 19 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 20 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 22 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 23 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 24 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 25 Drafts. 27 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six 28 months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents 29 at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 30 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 32 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 33 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt 35 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 36 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 38 Abstract 40 Several protocols might be used for Label Distribution in an MPLS 41 network, e.g. Label Distribution Protocol (LDP), including the part 42 of LDP described in Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP, the BGP-4 43 and RSVP. 45 The functionality defined in those protocols are to some extent 46 overlapping, but also complementary. This document specifies a 47 number of MPLS Capability sets that can be used to define what is 48 needed from an MPLS implementation in order to interwork with other 49 implementations. The number of Capability sets might change in the 50 future. 52 Table of Contents 54 Abstract ..........................................................1 55 Table of Contents .................................................2 56 1. Introduction ...................................................2 57 2. Overview .......................................................2 58 3. MPLS Capability set ............................................3 59 4. Protocol and functional components .............................3 60 5. Defined MPLS Capability set ....................................3 61 5.1 MPLS Capability set #1 ........................................4 62 5.2 MPLS Capability set #2 ........................................4 63 5.3 MPLS Capability set #3 ........................................4 64 5.4 MPLS Capability set #4 ........................................5 65 5.5 MPLS Capability set #5 ........................................5 66 5.6 MPLS Capability set #6 ........................................5 67 5.7 MPLS Capability set #7 ........................................5 68 5.8 MPLS Capability set #8 ........................................5 69 5.9 MPLS Capability set #9 ........................................5 70 5.10 MPLS Capability set #42 ......................................6 71 5.11 Future extensibility .........................................6 72 6. Security .......................................................6 73 7. Acknowledgements ...............................................6 74 8. References .....................................................6 76 1. Introduction 78 The set of documents that constitute the MPLS standard, as it is 79 being specified by the MPLS Working Group of IETF, offers several 80 ways of setting up Label Switched Paths (LSP) for a number of 81 applications, including support for traffic engineering and Virtual 82 Private Networks. 84 The Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) has been developed by the MPLS 85 WG for the explicit task of doing Label Distribution. Other 86 protocols, already in existence and originally developed for other 87 purposes, have been adapted or extended to support Label 88 Distribution. 90 This draft addresses unicast functionality only, multicast is for 91 further study. 93 2. Overview 95 It has been frequently noted that the functionality supported by the 96 most of the specifications of how you do Label Distribution, for 97 most applications, are richer than necessary. MPLS implementations 98 implementing parts of one specification or a mix of parts from 99 several specifications will be viable. 101 As all implementations won't support all of the specified mechanisms 102 for Label distribution specified in the MPLS standard. This 103 introduces the requirement of a tool for describing the compliance 104 between MPLS implementations. 106 3. MPLS Capability set 108 This draft introduces the MPLS Capability set as a method of 109 specifying the compliance of an implementation to the set of MPLS 110 specifications and to other implementations. This draft gives an 111 overview of what is needed, in terms of protocols and mechanism, to 112 support the MPLS capability sets. 114 4. Protocol and functional components 116 The following functional and protocol component are available in the 117 protocols developed for and/or extended to do label distribution, 118 [1], [2], [3] and [4]. All the specification listed below are worked 119 on by the MPLS WG, and is still work in progress. 121 Carrying Label Information in BGP-4 [1] 123 Defines mechanisms for: 124 - assigning labels to BGP routes 126 Constraint based routing with LDP (CR-LDP) [2] 128 Defines mechanisms for: 129 - explicit routed LSPs 130 - LSP set up with defined QoS 132 Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) [4] 134 Defines mechanisms for: 135 - basic LDP mechanisms 136 - LDP neighbor detection 137 - LDP session initiation, maintenance and termination 138 - loop detection 139 - modes of label distribution defined in [5] 140 - Downstream Unsolicited Independent Control 141 - Downstream Unsolicited Ordered Control 142 - Downstream On Demand Independent Control 143 - Downstream On Demand Ordered Control 145 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels [3] 147 Defines mechanisms for: 148 - explicit routed LSPs 149 - dynamic distribution of labels (hop-by-hop mechanism) 151 5. Defined MPLS Capability set 152 An MPLS Capability set defines the set of components that has to be 153 supported by an implementation claiming compatibility with the 154 capability set. Currently there are 10 Capability sets defined. 155 Although there sometimes/frequently is an obviously a relationship 156 between the Capability set and an intended use, this draft doesn't 157 state the intended use of or the application possible to support by 158 the capability set. 160 The intention is instead to give a reference framework that offers a 161 possibility to classify compatibility of MPLS implementations. The 162 Capability sets is atomic, i.e. it is not possible for an 163 application to be compliant to part of a capability set. However it 164 is possible for an application to be compliant with one or more 165 capability sets. 167 5.1 MPLS Capability set #1 169 MPLS Capability set #1 includes the following components: 171 - LDP basic mechanisms 172 - LDP neighbor detection 173 - LDP session initiation, maintenance and termination 174 - CR-LDP strict explicit routed LSPs 176 This Capability set supports explicit routed LSP set up, but does 177 not allow loosely routed segments on an explicit route. Note that 178 this capability set do not require the loop detection mechanism. 180 5.2 MPLS Capability set #2 182 MPLS Capability set #2 includes the following components: 183 - LDP basic mechanisms 184 - CR-LDP explicit routed LSPs 185 - modes of label distribution defined in [5] 186 - Downstream On Demand Ordered Control 188 This Capability set supports explicit routing and allows loosely 189 routed segments of an explicit route. 191 5.3 MPLS Capability set #3 193 MPLS Capability set #3 includes the following components: 195 - LDP basic mechanisms 196 - CR-LDP explicit routed LSPs 197 - CR-LDP LSP set up with QoS 198 - modes of label distribution defined in [5] 199 - Downstream On Demand Ordered Control 201 This Capability set supports explicit routing and allows loosely 202 routed segments of an explicit route. 204 5.4 MPLS Capability set #4 206 MPLS Capability set #4 includes the following components: 207 - LDP basic mechanisms 208 - All the modes of label distribution defined in [5] 210 This Capability set is label distribution as defined in [4]. 212 5.5 MPLS Capability set #5 214 MPLS Capability set #5 includes the following components: 215 - LDP basic mechanisms 216 - All the modes of label distribution defined in [5] 217 - CR-LDP explicit routed LSPs 218 - CR-LDP LSP set up with QoS 220 This Capability set is label distribution as defined in [4] and 221 [2] combined. 223 5.6 MPLS Capability set #6 225 MPLS Capability set #6 includes the following components: 226 - LDP basic mechanisms 227 - Downstream unsolicited independent control 229 This Capability set emulates the behavior of a legacy best effort IP 230 network. 232 5.7 MPLS Capability set #7 234 MPLS Capability set #7 includes the following components: 235 - RSVP explicit routed LSPs 236 - RSVP based dynamic distribution of labels 238 This Capability set is label distribution as defined in [3]. 240 5.8 MPLS Capability set #8 242 MPLS Capability set #8 includes the following components: 243 - RSVP explicit routed LSPs 244 - LDP basic mechanisms 245 - All the modes of label distribution defined in [5] 247 This Capability set gives explicit routed LSPs and a hop-by-hop 248 mechanism. 250 5.9 MPLS Capability set #9 252 MPLS Capability set #9 includes the following components: 253 - Assigning label to BGP routes as defined in [1]. 255 This Capability set could be used with any of capability set 1 256 through 7, and will in that case give a possibility to support 257 network hierarchy. It could also be used alone. 259 5.10 MPLS Capability set #42 261 MPLS Capability set #42 includes all of the components listed in 262 section 4 of this draft. 264 An LSR claiming 42 compliance should, with proper configuration, be 265 able to inter work with any other LSR compliant with any of the 266 capability sets. 268 5.11 Future extensibility 270 The number or capability sets are not static, but might be increased 271 or reduced as required, e.g. if the number of protocols 272 specification that defines label distribution changes. If there is a 273 need for any Capability set that has not been specified here it will 274 be added. Likewise, if any of the defined Capabilities sets fall out 275 of use it will be removed. 277 6. Security 279 This draft does not introduce any new security issues to the various 280 label distribution protocols. 282 7. Acknowledgements 284 We would like to thank the members of the MPLS working group of the 285 IETF, whose input and scrutiny of this document has been invaluable. 287 8. References 289 1 Y. Rehkter and E. Rosen, "Carrying Label Information in BGP-4" 290 , work in progress, August 1998. 292 2 B. Jamoussi et. al., "Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP" 293 work in progress, October 1999. 295 3 D. Awduche, L. Berger, D. Gan, T. Li, G. Swallow, 296 V Srinivasan, "Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", < draft-ietf- 297 mpls-rsvp-lsp-tunnel>, work in progress, October 1999. 299 4 L. Andersson et al., "LDP specification", 300 , work in progress, October 1999. 302 5 E. Rosen, A. Viswanathan, R. Callon,"Multiprotocol Label Switching 303 Architecture", < draft-ietf-mpls-arch>, work in progress, September 304 1999. 306 9. Author's Addresses 308 Loa Andersson Muckai K Girish 309 Nortel Networks Corp. SBC Technology Resources, 310 S:t Eriksgatan 115 4698 Willow Road 311 PO Box 6701 Pleasanton, CA 94588 312 113 85 Stockholm Phone: (925) 598-1263 313 Tel: +46 8 508 835 00 Fax: (925) 598-1321 314 Fax: +46 8 508 835 01 Mgirish@tri.sbc.com 315 Loa_andersson@nortelnetworks.com 317 Tom Worster Bilel Jamoussi 318 Nokia Nortel Networks Corp. 319 3 Burlington Woods Dr. 600 Technology Park Drive 320 Suite 250 Billerica, MA 01821 321 Burlington MA 01803 USA USA 322 +1 617 247 2624 phone: +1 978-288-4506 323 Tom.worster@nokia.com Jamoussi@nortelnetworks.com 325 Full Copyright Statement 327 "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (date). All Rights Reserved. 328 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 329 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 330 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published 331 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 332 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph 333 are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 334 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 335 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 336 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 337 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 338 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 339 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 340 English. 342 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 343 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.