Internet Draft Jun Kyun Choi Document: draft-choi-gmpls-label-framework-01.txt Min Ho Kang Expiration Date: August 2003 Gyu Myoung Lee ICU Joo Uk Um Yong Jae Lee KT(Korea Telecom) Jeong Yun Kim ETRI March 2003 Framework for GMPLS Label Encoding Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC-2026. 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 obsolete 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/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Abstract Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) extends the MPLS control plane to encompass packet switching, time-division, lambda and fiber switching. The new forms of label which used in GMPLS to deal with the widening scope of MPLS into the optical and time domain are collectively referred to as a "Generalized Label". In this draft for extending MPLS label specification [5], we describe the concept and characteristics of Generalized Label for GMPLS. We also discuss the format and considerations for label encoding. Particularly we present the necessity of mapping rule at ingress and egress switching interface where data flows with label of a different granularity are merged into the aggregated data flow of large bandwidth. Choi et al Expires - August 2003 [Page 1] Framework for GMPLS Label Encoding March 2003 Conventions 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. Table of Contents 1. Introduction.....................................................3 2. Generalized Label................................................4 2.1. The definition of Generalized Label.........................4 2.2. The Classification of Generalized Label.....................4 2.2.1. label for packet switch capable (PSC)...................4 2.2.2. label for Time Division Multiplex Capable (TDM).........5 2.2.3. label for Lambda Switch Capable(LSC) and Fiber Switch Capable(FSC)...................................................5 2.3. The relationship of label and switching interfaces..........6 2.4. Generalized Label Hierarchy.................................6 3. GMPLS label encoding.............................................8 3.1. Generalized Label Format....................................8 3.2. Label Encoding for Packet Switching Capable (PSC)...........8 3.3. Label Encoding for TDM time slot............................8 3.4. Label Encoding for Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) and Fiber Switch Capable (FSC).............................................8 3.4.1. lambda and port label format............................8 3.4.2. lambda label encoding...................................9 3.4.3. waveband label encoding.................................9 3.4.4. port label encoding....................................10 4. Considerations for implementation...............................10 5. Security Considerations.........................................11 Appendix. Summary of GMPLS label encoding specifications...........12 References.........................................................14 Acknowledgments....................................................15 Author's Addresses.................................................15 Choi et al Expires - August 2003 [Page 2] Framework for GMPLS Label Encoding March 2003 1. Introduction Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) extends MPLS from supporting Packet Switching Capable (PSC) interfaces and switching to include support of four new classes of interfaces and switching: Layer 2 Switch Capable (L2SC), Time Division Multiplex Capable (TDM), Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) and Fiber Switch Capable (FSC) [1]. GMPLS signaling specification [1] presents a functional description of the extensions to MPLS signaling needed to support these new classes of interfaces and switching. GMPLS Signaling such as RSVP-TE extensions [2] and CR-LDP extensions [3] includes the specific formats and mechanisms to support four classes of interfaces. In MPLS, a label is a short, fixed length, locally significant identifier which is used to identify a FEC. The label which is put on a particular packet represents the Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) to which that packet is assigned [4]. This label value does not necessarily imply a relationship to bandwidth or characteristics (e.g., frequency band, time slot information, etc) data flows. On the other hand, in GMPLS, to deal with the widening scope of MPLS into the optical and time domain, several new forms of "label" are required. These new forms of label are collectively referred to as a "Generalized Label". In GMPLS, the meanings of label are different from each other and MUST be identify data flows with several switching type. Therefore, the specific label encoding rule for each interface MUST be specified. At present, the encoding rules for MPLS label and TDM label are defined in related specifications [5],[6],[7]. In GMPLS-based optical network, we SHOULD consider the multiple granularities that label represents. So in GMPLS label hierarchy, data flows with small bandwidth need to be merged and aggregated in fiber and/or wavelength with large bandwidth. In this case, a Label Switched Path (LSP) such as lambda LSP and fiber LSP includes several kinds of labels. However, label format for optical interface such as wavelength and fiber is defined but the specific encoding and mapping rule doesn't be defined. Therefore, it is very important to specify the label allocation rule that is taken optical characteristic into consideration and manage the label with a different granularity. To support GMPLS, we SHOULD extend label encoding rule defined the existing MPLS label specification [5]. Therefore, in this draft, we describe the concept and characteristics of Generalized Label for GMPLS. We also discuss the format and considerations for label encoding. Particularly we present the necessity of mapping rule at ingress and egress switching interface where data flows with label of a different granularity are merged into the aggregated data flow of large bandwidth. Using this rule, we can control and manage data flows with several labels inside GMPLS control domain. Choi et al Expires - August 2003 [Page 3] Framework for GMPLS Label Encoding March 2003 2. Generalized Label 2.1. The definition of Generalized Label The Generalized Label extends the traditional label by allowing the representation of not only labels which travel in-band with associated data packets, but also labels which identify time-slots, wavelengths, or space division multiplexed positions [1]. Therefore, the Generalized Label includes the various meanings according to different switching interfaces and implies the available bandwidth for the corresponding data flow. In the followings, we summarize the characteristics of Generalized Label in GMPLS signaling specification [1]. - Values used in Generalized Label field only have significance between two neighbors, and the receiver may need to convert the received value into a value that has local significance. - A Generalized Label does not identify the "class" to which the label belongs. This is implicit in the multiplexing capabilities of the link on which the label is used. - A Generalized Label only carries a single level of label, i.e., it is non-hierarchical. When multiple levels of label (LSPs within LSPs) are required, each LSP MUST be established separately. - Each Generalized Label object carries a variable length label parameter. In the following section, we describe various kinds of label. 2.2. The Classification of Generalized Label 2.2.1. label for packet switch capable (PSC) Packet Switch Capable (PSC) interface can switch the received data on a packet-by-packet basis. This interface recognizes packet/cell boundaries and can forward data based on the content of the packet/cell header. The label carried in the "shim" header [5] is used in this interface. We define all kinds of label used in PSC interface as "MPLS label". - MPLS label This label represents a generic MPLS label, a Frame Relay label, or an ATM label. Generic MPLS labels and Frame Relay labels are encoded right justified aligned in 32 bits (4 octets). ATM labels are encoded with the VPI right justified in bits 0-15 and the VCI right justified in bits 16-31 [1]. Choi et al Expires - August 2003 [Page 4] Framework for GMPLS Label Encoding March 2003 2.2.2. label for Time Division Multiplex Capable (TDM) Time Division Multiplex Capable (TDM) interface forwards data based on the data's time slot in a repeating cycle. TDM interface can multiplex or demultiplex channels within a frame such as SDH payload. The followings are the descriptions of label for TDM. - SONET/SDH label This label identifies the exact position (i.e. first time-slot) of a particular VTx SPE, STS-x SPE or VC-x signal in a multiplexing structure [6]. Multiplexing structure for SONET/SDH is based on ANSI [8]/ITU-T G.707 [9] recommendations. - G.709 label In G.709 optical transport network, this label identifies the exact position of a particular ODUj signal in an ODUk multiplexing structure. To the support of ODUk mapping into OTUk, this label supports the sub-levels of ODUk multiplexing. ODUk multiplexing refers to multiplexing of ODUj (j = 1, 2) into an ODUk (k > j). These multiplexing structures are based on ITU-T G.709 [10] recommendation [7]. 2.2.3. label for Lambda Switch Capable(LSC) and Fiber Switch Capable(FSC) Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) interface forwards data based on the wavelength on which the data is received. Therefore, this interface can recognize and switch individual lambdas within the interface. An example of such an interface is an Optical Cross-Connect (OXC) switch that can operate at the level of an individual wavelength. The followings are the descriptions of label for Lambda Switch Capable (LSC). - lambda label This label represents a single wavelength within a waveband (or fiber). - waveband label Waveband represents a set of contiguous wavelengths which can be switched together to a new waveband. So, this label represents a single wavelength within a waveband (or fiber). Note: in waveband switching, the switching interface can recognize and switch individual waveband within the link (without distinguishing lambda, channels or packets). Fiber Switch Capable (FSC) interface forward data based on a position of the data in the real world physical spaces. Therefore, this interface can switch the entire contents to another interface (without distinguishing lambdas, channels or packets). Fiber Choi et al Expires - August 2003 [Page 5] Framework for GMPLS Label Encoding March 2003 switching system switches at the granularity of an entire interface, and can not exact individual lambdas within the interface. This interface uses port label. - port label This label represents a single fiber in a bundle 2.3. The relationship of label and switching interfaces Carrying label information on a given link depends on the switching capability of interface between the ends of the link [11]. The relationship of labels and switching interfaces is shown in Figure 1. +-----+ "Shim" header +-----+ +-----+ Lambda +-----+ | PSC |----------------| PSC | | PSC |----------------| LSC | +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ (waveband) +-----+ +-----+ TDM time slot +-----+ +-----+ port +-----+ | TDM |----------------| TDM | | PSC |----------------| FSC | +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ Lambda +-----+ +-----+ Lambda +-----+ | LSC |----------------| LSC | | TDM |----------------| LSC | +-----+ (waveband) +-----+ +-----+ (waveband) +-----+ +-----+ Port +-----+ +-----+ Port +-----+ | FSC |----------------| FSC | | TDM |----------------| FSC | +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ TDM time slot +-----+ +-----+ Port +-----+ | PSC |----------------| TDM | | LSC |----------------| FSC | +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ Figure 1. The relationship of labels and switching interfaces 2.4. Generalized Label Hierarchy In GMPLS-based optical network, the functionality to simultaneously switch different levels of granularity inside a given network can be supported. Therefore, GMPLS label makes a hierarchical architecture. The label hierarchy of GMPLS is shown in Figure 2. At the top of the hierarchy are nodes that do fiber switching using port label of Fiber Switch Capable (FSC) interfaces. Underneath are nodes that do OXC switching using lambda (waveband) label of Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) interfaces, followed by TDM time slot switching such as SONET, SDH and ADM using SONET/SDH label of Time Division Multiplex Capable (TDM) interfaces, and finally, nodes that do packet switching using Choi et al Expires - August 2003 [Page 6] Framework for GMPLS Label Encoding March 2003 MPLS label of Packet Switch Capable (PSC) interfaces. See [12] for more information on the concept of GMPLS hierarchies. "shim" header +-----++ +------+ +-----++ ----->|SONET | +-----++-----++ | SDH |\ +-----++-----++ +-----++ ----->| ADM | \ TDM Multiplexing +-----++ +------+ \ | SONET/SDH \ MPLS Label | Label \ +---------+ | \ | OXC | LSC | -->|Switching|\ | +---------+ \ | | Lambda \ | | (waveband) \ +---------+ | | Label \ | Fiber | | | ---->|Switching| | | +---------+ | | | |FSC | | | +--------> | | | Port Label --------------------------------------------------------------------- MPLS Label | MPLS Label | MPLS Label | MPLS Label | SONET/SDH Label | SONET/SDH Label | SONET/SDH Label | | Lambda Label | Lambda Label | | | Port Label --------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | Fiber LSP | | |<------------------ | | Lambda LSP | |<------------------------------------- | TDM time slot (TDM) LSP |<-------------------------------------------------------- Packet LSP <-------------------------------------------------------------------- Figure 2. GMPLS label hierarchy The data flows that have MPLS shim header are transferred through a packet LSP that originates between two packet switches. The data flows are aggregated in TDM switch such as SONET and SDH. The aggregated data flows with new SONET/SDH label are multiplexed inside a TDM time slot LSP between two TDM switches. Similarly, the multiplexed data flows with new lambda (waveband) label can be transferred inside a lambda LSP that originates between two lambda switches. Finally the data flows with new port label can be transferred inside a fiber LSP that originates between two fiber switches. Reversely, these data flows MUST be recovered in lower switching interface using label information. Therefore, using GMPLS signaling each switching interface determines the label value to use Choi et al Expires - August 2003 [Page 7] Framework for GMPLS Label Encoding March 2003 and keeps the mapping information between label and data flow. In particular, when each data flow with small bandwidth is merged into a data flow with large bandwidth, ingress and egress switching interface SHOULD know the information that data flows are multiplexed and demultiplexed in a synchronous and/or asynchronous manner for sharing resource (i.e., wavelength etc), see Section 4. 3. GMPLS label encoding 3.1. Generalized Label Format As currently proposed in GMPLS signaling specification [1], the Generalized Label 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Label | | ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Label: Variable Generalized Label carries label information of variable length. The interpretation of this field depends on the type of the link over which the label is used. Therefore, according to classes of interface and switching, the rule for label encoding MUST be specified. In the following section, we discuss the details of label encoding for each switching capable interface. 3.2. Label Encoding for Packet Switching Capable (PSC) See Appendix.1 for information on MPLS label encoding 3.3. Label Encoding for TDM time slot See Appendix.2 for information on TDM time slot label encoding 3.4. Label Encoding for Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) and Fiber Switch Capable (FSC) 3.4.1. lambda and port label format As currently proposed in GMPLS signaling specification [1], lambda label and port label has the 32bit label space as shown the following format. Choi et al Expires - August 2003 [Page 8] Framework for GMPLS Label Encoding March 2003 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Label | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Label: 32 bits This label information indicates port/fiber or lambda to be used, from the perspective of the sender of the object/TLV in GMPLS signaling [2], [3]. 3.4.2. lambda label encoding Lambda label encoding SHOULD consider the following attributes that represent lambda characteristics. - The wavelength of the selected lambda (Frequency band): This value can imply bandwidth for the corresponding data flow. - Modulation (WDM, SCM) - Additional information We will define the concrete flag and field for lambda label encoding in the next time. 3.4.3. waveband label encoding As currently defined in [1], the waveband label space definition is suitable and does not require any modification or extension. In the context of waveband switching, the generalized label 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Waveband Id | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Start Label | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | End Label | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Waveband Id: 32 bits A waveband identifier. The value is selected by the sender and reused in all subsequent related messages. Start Label: 32 bits Indicates the channel identifier of the lowest value wavelength making up the waveband, from the object/TLV sender's perspective. Choi et al Expires - August 2003 [Page 9] Framework for GMPLS Label Encoding March 2003 End Label: 32 bits Indicates the channel identifier of the highest value wavelength making up the waveband, from the object/TLV sender's perspective. Channel identifiers of start label and end label use the same label parameter that will be defined in lambda label encoding (section 3.4.2). 3.4.4. port label encoding Similar to lambda label encoding, port label encoding SHOULD consider attributes that represent fiber characteristics. We will define the concrete flag and field for lambda label encoding in the next time. 4. Considerations for implementation - Multiplexing in optical switching interface Let consider the case that data flows with label of a different granularity are merged into the aggregated data flow of large bandwidth in optical switching interface such as LSC and FSC. Figure 3 represents a simple example of multiplexing in OXC with LSC. Each switch performs multiplexing and demultiplexing for the purpose of sharing optical resource. These flows may be merged in a synchronous or/and synchronous manner of time domain according to switching schemes. Similar to label stacking, several flows with label are stacked. For TDM, label can represent the allocated time slot of the TDM hierarchy in use. Otherwise, each switching interface SHOULD have mapping information that each flow is located at a certain point of optical resource (e.g., wavelength etc). Therefore, mapping rule for implementation SHOULD be defined. +-----+--+ +-----+--+-----+--+--+ +-----+--+ |flow1|M1|\ +-----+ |flow2|M2|flow1|M1|L1| +-----+ /|flow1|M1| +-----+--+ \| OXC | +-----+--+-----+--+--+ | OXC |/ +-----+--+ +-----+--+ /|(LSC)|--------------------------|(LSC)|\ +-----+--+ |flow2|M2|/ +-----+ +-----+ \|flow2|M2| +-----+--+ Multiplexing Demultiplexing +-----+--+ M1,M2: MPLS label L1: lambda label Figure 3. Example of multiplexing in optical switching interface - Unnumbered link and link bundling Choi et al Expires - August 2003 [Page 10] Framework for GMPLS Label Encoding March 2003 Support of unnumbered link [13] has been introduced to address the scalability issues of assigning IP address to earn link of an optical switch. This is because the link of an optical switch may correspond to a fiber, lambda, or even TDM channel, depending on the switching granularity of the link. This reduces the management effort in configuring IP addresses and tracking allocated IP addresses, especially with optical network having large numbers of links. Link bundling [14] can be used to aggregate multiple parallel links into a single "bundled link" for IGP scaling purposes. This is important for optical networks, as hundreds of parallel fibers will be developed between switches and each fiber may obtain hundreds of wavelengths. In GMPLS label encoding, we MAY consider to represent unnumbered link and link bundling as "label". - Label stacking The traditional MPLS supports label stacking that is a more general model in which a labeled packet carries a number of labels, organized as a last-in, first-out stack [4]. This concept can be applied to the GMPLS LSP hierarchy. 5. Security Considerations This document does not have any security concerns. The security requirements using this document are described in the referenced documents. Choi et al Expires - August 2003 [Page 11] Framework for GMPLS Label Encoding March 2003 Appendix. Summary of GMPLS label encoding specifications 1. label encoding for packet switching capable (PSC) link [5] The label stack is represented as a sequence of "label stack entries". Each label stack entry is represented by 4 octets. The format of the label for packet switching capable (PSC) link 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Label | Label | Exp |S| TTL | Stack +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Entry Label: Label Value, 20 bits Exp: Experimental Use, 3 bits S: Bottom of Stack, 1 bit TTL: Time to Live, 8 bits The label stack entries appear AFTER the data link layer headers, but BEFORE any network layer headers. The top of the label stack appears earliest in the packet, and the bottom appears latest. The network layer packet immediately follows the label stack entry which has the S bit set. The details of each label entry are shown in [5]. 2. label encoding for TDM time slot 2.1 label encoding for SONET/SDH [6] The format of the label for SONET and/or SDH TDM-LSR link 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | S | U | K | L | M | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ This is an extension of the (K, L, M) numbering scheme defined in [15]. The higher order numbering scheme defined in [15] is not used. Each letter indicates a possible branch number starting at the parent node in the multiplex structure. Branches are considered as numbered in increasing order, starting from the top of the multiplexing structure. The numbering starts at 1, zero is used to indicate a non- significant or ignored field. When a field is not significant or ignored in a particular context it MUST be set to zero when transmitted, and MUST be ignored when received. Choi et al Expires - August 2003 [Page 12] Framework for GMPLS Label Encoding March 2003 The higher order SONET/SDH LSP behaves as a "virtual link" with a given bandwidth (e.g. VC-3), it may also be used as a Forwarding Adjacency. A lower order SONET/SDH LSP can be established through that higher order LSP. Since a label is local to a (virtual) link, the highest part of that label (i.e. the S, U and K fields) is non- significant and is set to zero, i.e. the label is "0,0,0,L,M". Similarly, if the structure of the lower order LSP is unknown or not relevant, the lowest part of that label (i.e. the L and M fields) is non-significant and is set to zero, i.e. the label is "S,U,K,0,0". 2.2 label encoding for G.709 optical transport network [7] The format of the label for the G.709 Digital Path Layer label or ODUk label 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+ | Reserved | t3 | t2 |t1| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+ The specification of the three fields t1, t2 and t3 self-consistently characterizes the ODUk label space. The value space of the t1, t2 and t3 fields is defined as follows: 1. t1 (1-bit): - t1=1 indicates an ODU1 signal. - t1 is not significant for the other ODUk signal types(t1=0). 2. t2 (3-bit): - t2=1 indicates a not further sub-divided ODU2 signal. - t2=2->5 indicates the tributary slot (t2th-2) used by the ODU1 in an ODTUG2 mapped into an ODU2 (via OPU2). - t2 is not significant for an ODU3 (t2=0). 3. t3 (6-bit): - t3=1 indicates a not further sub-divided ODU3 signal. - t3=2->17 indicates the tributary slot (t3th-1) used by the ODU1 in an ODTUG3 mapped into an ODU3 (via OPU3). - t3=18->33 indicates the tributary slot (t3th-17) used by the ODU2 in an ODTUG3 mapped into an ODU3 (via OPU3). Note: in case of ODU2 into ODU3 multiplexing, 4 labels are required to identify the 4 tributary slots used by the ODU2; these tributary time slots have to be allocated in ascending order. Choi et al Expires - August 2003 [Page 13] Framework for GMPLS Label Encoding March 2003 References [1] Lou Berger, et al. "Generalized MPLS - Signaling Functional Description", RFC3471, January 2003. [2] Lou Berger, et al. "Generalized MPLS Signaling - RSVP-TE Extensions", RFC3473, January 2003. [3] Peter Ashwood-Smith, et al. "Generalized MPLS Signaling - CR-LDP Extensions", RFC3472, January 2003. [4] E. Rosen, "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture", RFC3031, January 2001. [5] E. Rosen., et al. "MPLS Label Stack Encoding", RFC3032, January 2001. [6] Eric Mannie., et al. "Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching Extensions for SONET and SDH Control", Internet-Draft draft- ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-07.txt, work in progress, October 2002. [7] D. Papadimitriou., et al. "Generalized MPLS Signalling Extensions for G.709 Optical Transport Networks Control", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-03.txt, work in progress, November 2002. [8] ANSI T1.105, "Synchronous Optical Network (SONET): Basic Description Including Multiplex Structure, Rates, and Formats", October 2000. [9] ITU-T Recommendation G.707, "Network Node Interface for the Synchronous Digital Hierarchy", October 2000. [10] ITU-T Recommendation G.709, version 1.0 (and Amendment 1), "Interface for the Optical Transport Network(OTN)", February 2001 (and October 2001). [11] K. Kompella, et al. "Routing Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls- routing-05.txt, work in progress, August 2002. [12] Kireeti Kompella, et al. "LSP Hierarchy with Generalized MPLS TE", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-08.txt, work in progress, September 2002. [13] Eric Mannie, et al. "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls- architecture-03.txt, work in progress, August 2002. Choi et al Expires - August 2003 [Page 14] Framework for GMPLS Label Encoding March 2003 [14] Kireeti Kompella, et al. "Link Bundling in MPLS Traffic Engineering", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-bundle-04.txt, work in progress, July 2002. [15] ITU-T Recommendation G.707, "Network Node Interface for the Synchronous Digital Hierarchy", October 2000. Acknowledgments This work was supported in part by the Korean Science and Engineering Foundation (KOSEF) through OIRC project. Author's Addresses Jun Kyun Choi Information and Communications University (ICU) 58-4 Hwa Ahm Dong, Yuseong, Daejeon Korea 305-732 Phone: +82-42-866-6122 Email: jkchoi@icu.ac.kr Min Ho Kang Information and Communications University (ICU) 58-4 Hwa Ahm Dong, Yuseong, Daejeon Korea 305-732 Phone: +82-42-866-6136 Email: mhkang@icu.ac.kr Gyu Myoung Lee Information and Communications University (ICU) 58-4 Hwa Ahm Dong, Yuseong, Daejeon Korea 305-732 Phone: +82-42-866-6231 Email: gmlee@icu.ac.kr Joo Uk Um KT(Korea Telecom) 206 Jungja-dong, Bungdang-gu, Sungnam-City Kyunggi Province, 463-711, Korea Phone:+82-31-727-6610 Email: Jooukum@kt.co.kr Yong Jae Lee KT(Korea Telecom) 206 Jungja-dong, Bungdang-gu, Sungnam-City Kyunggi Province, 463-711, Korea Choi et al Expires - August 2003 [Page 15] Framework for GMPLS Label Encoding March 2003 Phone:+82-31-727-6610 Email: cruiser@kt.co.kr Jeong Yun Kim ETRI (Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute) 161 KaJong-Dong, Yusong-Gu, Daejeon Korea 305-309 Phone: +82-42-866-5311 Email: jykim@etri.re.kr Full Copyright Statement "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (date). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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." Document: draft-choi-gmpls-label-framework-01.txt Expiration Date: August 2003 Choi et al Expires - August 2003 [Page 16]