Internet DRAFT - draft-fuxh-tictoc-associate-pw-with-ptp
draft-fuxh-tictoc-associate-pw-with-ptp
Network Working Group X. Fu
Internet-Draft M. Tao
Intended status: Standards Track ZTE
Expires: April 26, 2012 October 24, 2011
Associate PW label with PTP application
draft-fuxh-tictoc-associate-pw-with-ptp-00.txt
Abstract
[1588overMPLS] defines two methods for transporting PTP messages
(PDUs) over an MPLS network. The second method is to transport PTP
messages inside a PW via Ethernet encapsulation. When PHP is applied
to PTP LSP or the PW is etablished between two routers directly and
no PTP LSP is needed, PW label must be associated with PTP
application at the PW termination point. This document introduces a
mechanism to associate PW label with PTP application.
Requirements Language
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 [RFC 2119].
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
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
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 26, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Fu & Tao Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PW Label,Association,PTP October 2011
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. PTP-Aware Capability Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. LDP Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. BGP Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. PTP Application Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. LDP Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. BGP Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Fu & Tao Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PW Label,Association,PTP October 2011
1. Introduction
[1588overMPLS] defines two methods for transporting PTP messages
(PDUs) over an MPLS network. The second method is to transport PTP
messages inside a PW via Ethernet encapsulation. When PHP is applied
to PTP LSP or the PW is etablished between two routers directly and
no PTP LSP is needed, PW label must be associated with PTP
application at the PW termination point. This document extend LDP
and BGP to associate PW label with PTP application.
2. PTP-Aware Capability Advertisement
It is useful for PW switching point to announce its capabilities,
such as the capability to be PTP-aware. So both PW switching points
could know each other of the PTP-aware capability. If both of them
could support PTP-aware, PTP PW label could be coordinated during the
label mapping.
2.1. LDP Extension
[RFC5561] defines a mechanism for advertising LDP enhancements at
session initialization time. So LDP capability advertisement
provides means for an LDP speaker to announce what it can receive and
process. This document introduces a new Capability Parameter TLV,
the PTP-Aware Capability. Following is the format of the PTP-Aware
Capability Parameter.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1|0| PTP-Aware Capability(TBD)| Length (= 1) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: PTP-Aware Capability TLV
The PTP-Aware Capability TLV MUST be supported in the LDP
Initialization Message([RFC5561]). Advertisement of the PTP-Aware
Capability indicates that the PW switching point supports PTP message
processing and PTP application association
2.2. BGP Extension
TBD
Fu & Tao Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PW Label,Association,PTP October 2011
3. PTP Application Association
When PTP LSP isn't be present, PW switching point must associate the
top label (aka PW Label) with PTP application so that it can identify
PTP traffic carried in the PW.
This PTP application association relationship could be configured by
management system. It could also be configure by dynamic control
plane. This document introduces LDP/BGP extension to signal that
this PW segment is a PTP PW.
3.1. LDP Extension
[RFC3036] defines the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) for
distributing labels. This document defines a new TLV, PTP
Association TLV which can be used to indicate a PW is associated with
PTP traffic. This TLV is carried in the Label Mapping message.
The PTP Association TLV, is defined as follows (TLV type needs to be
assigned 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1|1| PTP Association(TBD) | Length (= 1) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Offset to locate the start of the PTP message header |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: PTP Association TLV
The OFFSET to the start of the PTP message header MAY also be
signaled. Implementations can trivially locate the correctionField
(CF) location given this information. The OFFSET points to the start
of the PTP header as a node may want to check the PTP messageType
before it touches the correctionField (CF).
The T-PE or S-PE must include this object in the LDP Mapping Message
when it want to request a PTP label or advertise a PTP label to a
peer.
3.2. BGP Extension
TBD
Fu & Tao Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PW Label,Association,PTP October 2011
4. IANA Considerations
TBD.
5. Security Considerations
TBD.
6. Acknowledgements
TBD.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
7.2. Informative References
[1588overMPLS]
S. Davari, "Transporting PTP messages (1588) over MPLS
Networks", draft-ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls-02 .
Authors' Addresses
Xihua Fu
ZTE
Email: fu.xihua@zte.com.cn
Muliu Tao
ZTE
Email: tao.muliu@zte.com.cn
Fu & Tao Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 5]
