INTERNET-DRAFT Nov. 11, 2007 IETF INTERNET-DRAFT T. Otani Intended status: Informational M. Miyazawa Expires:May 16, 2008 KDDI R&D Labs Nov. 11, 2007 GMPLS MIB family update Document: draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-mib-update-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/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Abstract This memo describes the necessity of generalized multi-protocol label switching (GMPLS) management information base (MIB) family update. Since the establishment of basic GMPLS protocol specifications, additional functionalities has been proposed and standardized so far, such as recovery, call support, optical transport network (OTN) support and so forth. Coinciding with these additional specifications, GMPLS MIB family is also desired to be updated to manage GMPLS networks appropriately. This document is to clarify missing pieces in currently defined GMPLS MIB family due to the enhancement of original GMPLS protocols. Table of Contents Status of this Memo................................................ 1 Abstract........................................................... 1 1. Introduction.................................................... 3 2. Conventions used in this document............................... 3 T. Otani et al. Informational - Expires May 16, 2008 1 INTERNET-DRAFT Nov. 11, 2007 3. GMPLS MIB family................................................ 3 4. GMPLS protocol updates.......................................... 3 5. Missing pieces of GMPLS MIB Family.............................. 4 6. Security consideration.......................................... 4 7. IANA Considerations............................................. 4 8. Acknowledgement................................................. 5 9. Intellectual property considerations............................ 5 10. References..................................................... 5 11. Author's Addresses............................................. 6 Document expiration................................................ 7 Copyright statement................................................ 7 T. Otani et al. Informational - Expires May 16, 2008 2 INTERNET-DRAFT Nov. 11, 2007 1. Introduction With standardizing basic GMPLS protocols, ccamp WG has also defined related GMPLS MIBs to manage label switched routers (LSRs), label switched paths (LSPs) and TE links. However, as the time being, additional functionalities have been proposed and standardized so far, such as recovery, call support, OTN support and so forth. Coinciding with these specifications, GMPLS MIB family is desired to be updated to manage GMPLS networks appropriately. This document is to clarify missing pieces in currently defined GMPLS MIB family due to the enhancement of GMPLS protocols and to propose to start the update work of GMPLS MIB family. 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 RFC-2119 [RFC2119]. 3. GMPLS MIB family CCAMP WG created series of GMPLS MIB specification so far to manage label switched routers (LSRs), label switched paths (LSPs) and traffic engineering (TE) links, accompanying with MPLS MIBs created in MPLS WG, summarized as follows, (1) GMPLS TC MIB: [RFC4801] (2) LSRs (Nodes) - GMPLS LSR MIB: [RFC4803] (MPLS LSR MIB: [RFC3813]) (3) LSPs (Paths) - GMPLS TE MIB: [RFC4802] (MPLS TE MIB: [RFC3812]) (4) TE Links (Links) - LMP MIB: [RFC4631] (TE link MIB: [RFC4220]) CCAMP WG is also working for the MIB specification to manage TE database information. (5) TE database (routing) - TEDB MIB: [GMPLS-TED-MIB] 4. GMPLS protocol updates Since the establishment of the original GMPLS protocol specifications, additional functionalities have been added so far summarized as follows. Original signaling specifications [RFC3471, RFC3473] were mainly updated for the inclusion of T. Otani et al. Informational - Expires May 16, 2008 3 INTERNET-DRAFT Nov. 11, 2007 - Egress support [RFC4003] - OTN support [RFC4328] - Exclude route [RFC4874] - Recovery of end-to-end and segment-by-segment [RFC4872, RFC4873] - Call support [RFC4974] Moreover, in the future, this will be also updated by - Ethernet support - Lambda support 5. Missing pieces of GMPLS MIB Family Here is a possible list of future inclusion to GMPLS MIB Family. Inclusion will be determined according to GMPLS OAM requirements [GMPLS-OAM-REQ]. (1) Node - Ingress and Egress port control information of each LSP - OTN label as GMPLS label types - Administrative status of cross-connections for recovery purpose (2) Paths - GMPLS recovery types of LSPs - LSP status information related with recovery - Ingress/Egress port information of GMPLS LSPs (3) Link - OTN as an encoding type 6. Security consideration This document introduces no new security considerations in [RFC3471] and [RFC3471]. 7. IANA Considerations A. Must specify if IANA has to create a new registry or modify rules for an existing registry. B. Must specify if the document requires IANA to assign or update values in an IANA registry before RFC publication. C. See "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs" [RFC2434] (Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs, " October 1998.) and in some cases also "IANA Allocation Guidelines For Values In the Internet Protocol and Related Headers" [RFC2780] (Bradner, S. and V. Paxson, "IANA Allocation Guidelines For Values In the Internet Protocol and Related Headers, " March 2000.). In some case "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers Considered Useful" [RFC3692] (Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers Considered Useful," January 2004.) may help as well. D. T. Otani et al. Informational - Expires May 16, 2008 4 INTERNET-DRAFT Nov. 11, 2007 If there is no action for IANA, the section should say that, e.g., including something like "This document has no actions for IANA." 8. Acknowledgement The authors would like to express their thanks to Adrian Farrel for the discussion. 9. Intellectual property considerations 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. 10. References 10.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC4801] T. Nadeau and A. Farrel, Ed., "Definitions of Textual Conventions for Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Management", RFC4801, Feb. 2007. [RFC4803] T. Nadeau and A. Farrel, Ed., "Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Label Switching Router (LSR) Management Information Base", RFC4803, Feb. 2007. [RFC3813] C. Srinivasan, et al., "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switching Router (LSR) Management Information Base (MIB)", RFC3813, June 2004. T. Otani et al. Informational - Expires May 16, 2008 5 INTERNET-DRAFT Nov. 11, 2007 [RFC4802] T. Nadeau and A. Farrel, Ed., "Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Management Information Base", RFC4802, Feb. 2007. [RFC3812] C. Srinivasan, et al., "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Management Information Base (MIB)", RFC3812, June 2004. [RFC4631] M. Dubuc, et al., "Link Management Protocol (LMP) Management Information Base (MIB)", RFC4631, Sept. 2006. [RFC4220] M. Dubuc, et al., "Traffic Engineering Link Management Information Base", RFC4220, Nov. 2005. [RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, January 2003. [RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS} Signaling - Resource ReserVation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. [RFC4003] Berger, L., "GMPLS Signaling Procedure for Egress Control", RFC4003, Feb. 2005. [RFC4328] D. Papadimitriou, Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical Transport Networks Control", RFC4328, Jan. 2007. [RFC4874] CY. Lee, et al., "Exclude Routes - Extension to Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) ", RFC4874, April 2007. [RFC4872] J.P. Lang, Ed., "RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to- End Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery", RFC4872, May 2007. [RFC4873] L. Berger, "GMPLS Segment Recovery", RFC4873, May 2007. [RFC4974] D. Papadimitriou, et al., "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in Support of Calls", RFC4974, Aug. 2007. 10.2. Normative References [GMPLS-TED-MIB] T. Otani, et al., "Traffic Engineering Database Management Information Base in support of GMPLS", draft-ietf-ccamp- gmpls-ted-mib-02.txt, July 2007. [GMPLS-OAM-REQ] T. Nadeau, et al, "OAM Requirements for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Networks", draft-ietf-ccamp- gmpls-oam-requirements-00.txt, Oct. 2007. 11. Author's Addresses T. Otani et al. Informational - Expires May 16, 2008 6 INTERNET-DRAFT Nov. 11, 2007 Tomohiro Otani KDDI R&D Laboratories, Inc. 2-1-15 Ohara Fujimino Phone: +81-49-278-7357 Saitama, 356-8502. Japan Email: otani@kddilabs.jp Masanori Miyazawa KDDI R&D Laboratories, Inc. 2-1-15 Ohara Fujimino Phone: +81-49-278-7559 Saitama, 356-8502. Japan Email: ma-miyazawa@kddilabs.jp Document expiration This document will be expired in May 16, 2008, unless it is updated. 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. T. Otani et al. Informational - Expires May 16, 2008 7