GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc3476

Network Working Group B. Rajagopalan Request for Comments: 3476 Tellium, Inc. Category: Informational March 2003

 Documentation of IANA Assignments for Label Distribution Protocol

(LDP), Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP), and Resource ReSerVation

         Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions
                    for Optical UNI Signaling

Status of this Memo

 This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
 not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
 memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

 The Optical Interworking Forum (OIF) has defined extensions to the
 Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) and the Resource ReSerVation
 Protocol (RSVP) for optical User Network Interface (UNI) signaling.
 These extensions consist of a set of new data objects and error
 codes.  This document describes these extensions.

1. Introduction

 The OIF UNI signaling specification is described in [8].  This
 specification utilizes IETF protocol standards as well as IETF work
 in progress.  Specifically, the following IETF specifications are
 used:
 o  Label distribution protocol (LDP) [6]
 o  Resource reservation protocol (RSVP) [5]
 o  GMPLS signaling and GMPLS extensions for SONET/SDH [4]
 o  GMPLS RSVP-TE and CR-LDP extensions [2, 3]
 The aim of the OIF UNI specification is the maximal re-use of IETF
 protocol definitions.  A few extensions to IETF protocols, however,
 have been defined to serve UNI-specific needs.  These extensions are
 described in this document.

Rajagopalan Informational [Page 1] RFC 3476 LDP & RSVP Extensions for Optical UNI Signaling March 2003

2. LDP Extensions for UNI Signaling

 The LDP extensions for UNI signaling consist of new TLVs that capture
 UNI-specific parameters and new UNI-specific status codes.  The new
 TLVs are Source ID (3 TLVs), Destination ID (3 TLVs), Egress Label,
 Local Connection ID, Diversity, Contract ID, and UNI Service Level
 [8].  These are described below.  The new status codes are assigned
 from the private use space of LDP codes, as described in [8].  The
 UNI specification [8] also defines two new LDP messages, Status
 Enquiry and Status Response.  These messages have been obsoleted and
 hence no code points are requested in this document for them.

2.1 Source ID TLVs

 Three TLVs have been defined to encode the Source ID. The content and
 usage of these TLVs are described in [8].

2.1.1 IPv4 Source ID

  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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |U|F|Source ID Type (0x0960)    |      Length                   |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                                                               |
 ~                      Contents                                 ~
 |                                                               |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

2.1.2 IPv6 Source ID

  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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |U|F|Source ID Type (0x0961)    |      Length                   |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                                                               |
 ~                      Contents                                 ~
 |                                                               |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Rajagopalan Informational [Page 2] RFC 3476 LDP & RSVP Extensions for Optical UNI Signaling March 2003

2.1.3 NSAP Source ID

  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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |U|F|Source ID Type (0x0962)    |      Length                   |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                                                               |
 ~                      Contents                                 ~
 |                                                               |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

2.2 Destination ID TLVs

 Three TLVs have been defined to encode the Destination ID. The
 content and usage of these TLVs are described in [8].

2.2.1 IPv4 Destination ID

  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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |U|F|Dest ID Type (0x0963)      |      Length                   |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                                                               |
 ~                      Contents                                 ~
 |                                                               |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

2.2.2 IPv6 Destination ID

  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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |U|F|Dest ID Type (0x0964)      |      Length                   |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                                                               |
 ~                      Contents                                 ~
 |                                                               |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Rajagopalan Informational [Page 3] RFC 3476 LDP & RSVP Extensions for Optical UNI Signaling March 2003

2.2.3 NSAP Destination ID

  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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |U|F|Dest  ID Type (0x0965)     |      Length                   |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                                                               |
 ~                      Contents                                 ~
 |                                                               |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

2.3 Egress Label TLV

 The Egress Label TLV is encoded as:
     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
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |U|F|Egress Label (0x966)       |        Length                 |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                                                               |
    ~                      Contents                                 ~
    |                                                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 The content and usage of this TLV are described in [8].

2.4 Local Connection ID TLV

 The Local Connection ID TLV is encoded as:
     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
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |U|F|Local Conn. ID (0x967)     |        Length                 |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                                                               |
    ~                      Contents                                 ~
    |                                                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 The content and usage of this TLV are described in [8].

Rajagopalan Informational [Page 4] RFC 3476 LDP & RSVP Extensions for Optical UNI Signaling March 2003

2.5 Diversity TLV

 The Diversity TLV is encoded as:
     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
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |U|F|Diversity (0x968)          |        Length                 |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                                                               |
    ~                      Contents                                 ~
    |                                                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 The content and usage of this TLV are described in [8].

2.6 Contract ID TLV

 The Contract ID TLV is encoded as:
     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
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |U|F|Contract ID (0x969)        |        Length                 |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                                                               |
    ~                      Contents                                 ~
    |                                                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 The content and usage of this TLV are described in [8].

2.7 UNI Service Level TLV

 The UNI Service Level TLV is encoded as:
     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
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |U|F|Service Level (0x970)      |        Length                 |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                                                               |
    ~                      Contents                                 ~
    |                                                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 The content and usage of this TLV are described in [8].

Rajagopalan Informational [Page 5] RFC 3476 LDP & RSVP Extensions for Optical UNI Signaling March 2003

3. RSVP Extensions for UNI Signaling

 A single new object class, called "Generalized_UNI" is defined.  In
 addition, extension to the RSVP session object and new UNI-specific
 error codes are defined.  These are described below.

3.1 Generalized_UNI Object

 The GENERALIZED_UNI object 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
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |       Length (>8)             | CNum(229)     |  C-Type (1)   |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    //                        (Subobjects)                         //
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 Subobjects:
 The contents of a GENERALIZED_UNI object are a series of variable-
 length data items.  The common format of the sub-objects is shown
 below:
     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
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |       Length                  |    Type       |  Sub-Type     |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    //                             Value                           //
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 The following sub-objects are defined.  The contents of these sub-
 objects are described in [8]:
  1. Source Transport Network Assigned (TNA) Address sub-object:

Type = 1. The following sub-types are defined:

             Ipv4 (Sub-type = 1);
             Ipv6 (Sub-type = 2);
             NSAP (Sub-type = 3).
  1. Destination TNA Address sub-object: Type = 2;

The following sub-types are defined:

             Ipv4 (Sub-type = 1);
             Ipv6 (Sub-type = 2);
             NSAP (Sub-type = 3).

Rajagopalan Informational [Page 6] RFC 3476 LDP & RSVP Extensions for Optical UNI Signaling March 2003

  1. Diversity sub-object: Type = 3, Sub-type = 1.
  2. Egress label sub-object: Type = 4, Sub-type = 1.
  3. Service level sub-object: Type = 5, Sub-type = 1.

3.2 UNI_Ipv4_Session Object

 This object [7] has the following format:
 UNI_IPv4_SESSION object: Class = 1, C-Type = 11
     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
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |       Length (16)             | Class-Num(1)  |C-Type (11)    |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                         IPv4 Address                          |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |       MUST be zero            |      Tunnel ID                |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                   Extended IPv4 Address                       |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 The C-Type value (11) will distinguish UNI-related RSVP Sessions
 from other RSVP sessions.  The usage of this object is described in
 [8].

3.3 Error Codes

 UNI-specific errors fall under the "Routing Problem" (error code =
 24) [7] and "Policy Control Failure" (error code = 2) [5] errors, and
 they require the assignment of sub-codes.  The following is the list
 of errors and proposed assignments of sub-codes:
  1. Routing Problem: Diversity not available (Error code = 24, sub-

code = 100)

  1. Routing Problem: Service level not available (Error code = 24,

sub-code = 101)

  1. Routing problem: Invalid/Unknown connection ID (Error code = 24,

sub-code = 102)

  1. Policy control failure: Unauthorized sender (Error code = 2, sub-

code = 100)

  1. Policy control failure: Unauthorized receiver (Error code = 2,

sub-code = 101)

Rajagopalan Informational [Page 7] RFC 3476 LDP & RSVP Extensions for Optical UNI Signaling March 2003

4. IANA Considerations

 The OIF UNI 1.0 specification defines new objects and error codes
 under LDP and RSVP.  The majority of these extensions require code
 point assignments via IETF consensus action.  These are summarized
 below.

4.1 LDP Messages, TLVs and Status Codes

 TLV types 0x0960 - 0x0970 as described in Sections 2.1 - 2.7 above.
 UNI-specific status codes have been allocated out of the Private Use
 space, i.e., 0x3Fxxxxxx.  These do not require IANA administration.

4.2 RSVP Object Class and Error Codes

 Generalized_UNI object class (Section 3.1), Class Number 229, C-Type
 1.  Further sub-objects are defined, with Type numbers 1-5 and
 various Sub-Type numbers, as described in Section 3.1.  The code
 points for the Generalized_UNI object and the associated sub-objects
 require IANA administration.
 UNI_Ipv4_Session Object (Class-Num = 1, C-Type = 11), as described in
 Section 3.2.
 UNI-specific errors fall under the Routing Problem and Policy Control
 Failure errors (error codes 24 and 2).  Sub-codes under error code 24
 are 100, 101 and 102, as described in Section 3.3.  Sub-codes under
 error code 2 are 100 and 101, as described in Section 3.3.

5. Security Considerations

 Security considerations related to RSVP, RSVP-TE and LDP are
 described in Section 2.8, Section 6 and Section 5 of RFCs 2205 [5],
 3209 [9] and 3036 [6], respectively.  Security considerations
 pertaining to UNI signaling using the extensions described in this
 document and how these relate to the security aspects of RSVP, RSVP-
 TE and LDP are described in Section 13.4 of the UNI specification
 [8].

6. References

 [1] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
     (MPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, January 2003.
 [2] Berger, L., Editor,  "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
     (MPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
     Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.

Rajagopalan Informational [Page 8] RFC 3476 LDP & RSVP Extensions for Optical UNI Signaling March 2003

 [3] Ashwood-Smith, P. and L. Berger, Editors, "Generalized Multi-
     Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Signaling Constraint-based Routed
     Label Distribution Protocol (CR-LDP) Extensions", RFC 3472,
     January 2003.
 [4] E. Mannie, et al., "GMPLS Extensions for SONET and SDH Control",
     Work in Progress.
 [5] Braden, R., Editor, Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S. and S.
     Jamin, "RSVP Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.
 [6] Andersson, L., Doolan, P., Feldman, N., Fredette, A. and B.
     Thomas, "LDP Specification", RFC 3036, January 2001.
 [7] 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.
 [8] UNI 1.0 Signaling Specification, The Optical Internetworking
     Forum, http://www.oiforum.com/public/UNI_1.0_ia.html

7. Intellectual Property

 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
 intellectual property 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; neither does it represent that it
 has made any effort to identify any such rights.  Information on the
 IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
 standards-related documentation can be found in RFC 2028.
 Copies of claims of rights made available for publication 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 implementors or users of this
 specification can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.
 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
 rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
 this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF Executive
 Director.

Rajagopalan Informational [Page 9] RFC 3476 LDP & RSVP Extensions for Optical UNI Signaling March 2003

8. Author's Address

 Bala Rajagopalan
 Tellium, Inc.
 2 Crescent Place
 Ocean Port, NJ 07757
 Phone: +1-732-923-4237
 EMail: braja@tellium.com

Rajagopalan Informational [Page 10] RFC 3476 LDP & RSVP Extensions for Optical UNI Signaling March 2003

8. Full Copyright Statement

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  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.

Acknowledgement

 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
 Internet Society.

Rajagopalan Informational [Page 11]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc3476.txt · Last modified: 2003/04/01 17:15 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki