Internet Draft Lou Berger (LabN) Updates: 3471, 3473, 3945, 4202 Don Fedyk (Nortel) Category: Standards Track Expiration Date: February 8, 2009 August 8, 2008 Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Data Channel Switching Capable (DCSC) and Channel Set Label Extensions draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-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 February 8, 2009. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). Abstract This document describes two technology independent extensions to Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching. The first extension defines the new switching type Data Channel Switching Capable. Data Channel Switching Capable interfaces are able to support switching of the whole digital channel presented on single channel interfaces. The second extension defines a new type of generalized label and updates related objects. The new label is called the Generalized Channel_Set Label and allows more than one data plane label to be controlled as part of an LSP. Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 1] Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-00.txt August 8, 2008 Table of Contents 1 Introduction .............................................. 3 1.1 Conventions used in this document ......................... 3 2 Data Channel Switching .................................... 3 3 Generalized Channel_Set Label Related Formats ............. 4 3.1 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST Object .............. 4 3.2 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object ...................... 4 3.3 Other Label related Objects ............................... 7 4 IANA Considerations ....................................... 7 4.1 Data Channel Switching Type ............................... 7 4.2 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL_REQUEST Object .............. 7 4.3 Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object ...................... 8 5 Security Considerations ................................... 8 6 References ................................................ 8 6.1 Normative References ...................................... 8 6.2 Informative References .................................... 9 7 Acknowledgments ........................................... 9 8 Author's Addresses ........................................ 10 9 Full Copyright Statement .................................. 10 10 Intellectual Property ..................................... 10 Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 2] Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-00.txt August 8, 2008 1. Introduction This document describes two technology independent extensions to Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS). Both of extensions were initially defined to in the context of Ethernet services, see [GMPLS-ESVCS] and [GMPLS-MEF-UNI], but are generic in nature and may be useful to any switching technology controlled via GMPLS. The first extension defines a new switching type, which is called Data Channel Switching Capable, or DCSC. DCSC interfaces are able to support switching of the whole digital channel presented on single channel interfaces. The second extension defines a new type of generalized label and updates related objects. The new label is called the Generalized Channel_Set Label and allows more than one data plane label to be controlled as part of an LSP. 1.1. 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. Data Channel Switching Current GMPLS switching types are defined in [RFC3945] and [RFC3471] and support switching at the packet (PSC), frame (L2SC), time-slot (TDM), frequency (LSC) and fiber (FSC) granularities. One type of switching that is not well represented in this current set switching that takes all data received on an ingress port and switches it through a 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], such port-to-port switching is not limited to the optical switching technology implied by the LSC type. Therefore, a new switching type is defined. The new switching type is called Data Channel Switching Capable (DCSC). (Port switching seems a more intuitive name, but it collides with PSC so isn't used.) 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 line encoded interfaces. Framed interfaces may also be included when they support switching on an interface granularity. Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 3] Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-00.txt August 8, 2008 DCSC is represented in GMPLS, see [RFC3471] and [RFC4202], using the value TBA (by IANA). Port labels, as defined in [RFC3471], SHOULD be used for LSPs signaled using the DCSC Switching Type. 3. Generalized Channel_Set Label Related Formats This section defines a new type of generalized label and updates related objects. This section updates the label related definitions of [RFC3473]. The ability to communicate more than one label as part of the same LSP was motivated by the support for the communication of one or more VLAN IDs, but the formats defined in this section are not technology specific and may be useful for other switching technologies. 3.1. 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 with 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. 3.2. Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object The Generalized Channel_Set LABEL Object communicates one or more labels, all of which can be used equivalently in the data path associated with a single LSP. The format of the Generalized Channel_Set LABEL 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 MUST be processed per [RFC3473]. Make-before- break procedures, see [RFC3209], SHOULD be used when modifying the Channel_Set LABEL object. Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 4] Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-00.txt August 8, 2008 The format of the Generalized Channel_Set LABEL object is: o Generalized Channel_Set LABEL object: Class = 16, C-Type = TBA (By IANA) 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 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 & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 5] Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-00.txt August 8, 2008 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 Channel_Set Sub-Objects MUST be used. Note that the size of the sub-object may result in a Path message being larger than a single unfragmented IP packet. See section 4.4 for an example of how this case may be handled. A value of zero (0) has special meaning and MAY be used in either the LABEL or UPSTREAM_LABEL object. A value of zero (0) is used in a LABEL or UPSTREAM_LABEL object to indicate that the subchannel(s) used in the corresponding (downstream or upstream) direction MUST match the subchannel(s) carried in the reverse directions 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. The zero (0) value MUST NOT be used in both the LABEL and UPSTREAM_LABEL object of the same LSP. 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 stated above. 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. Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 6] Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-00.txt August 8, 2008 3.3. 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 is 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. IANA Considerations IANA is requested to administer assignment of new values for namespaces defined in this document and reviewed in this section. 4.1. 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. 4.2. 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. Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 7] Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-00.txt August 8, 2008 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. 4.3. 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. 5. 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. 6. References 6.1. Normative References [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. Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 8] Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-00.txt August 8, 2008 [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. [RFC4202] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005. 6.2. Informative References [GMPLS-ESVCS] Berger, L., Papadimitriou, P., Fedyk, D., "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support For Metro Ethernet Forum and G.8011 Ethernet Service Switching", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-02.txt, August 2008. [GMPLS-MEF-UNI] Berger, L., Papadimitriou, P., Fedyk, D., "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support For Metro Ethernet Forum and G.8011 User-Network Interface (UNI)", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-01.txt, August 2008. 7. Acknowledgments Dimitri Papadimitriou provided substantial textual contributions to this document and coauthored earlier versions of this document. The authors would like to thank Evelyne Roch, Stephen Shew, and Adrian Farrel for their valuable comments. Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 9] Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-00.txt August 8, 2008 8. Author's Addresses Lou Berger LabN Consulting, L.L.C. Phone: +1-301-468-9228 Email: lberger@labn.net Don Fedyk Nortel Networks 600 Technology Park Drive Billerica, MA, 01821 Phone: +1-978-288-3041 Email: dwfedyk@nortel.com 9. Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). 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. 10. 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. Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 10] Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-00.txt August 8, 2008 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 & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 11] Generated on: Fri Aug 8 09:53:22 EDT 2008