GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc6004

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Berger Request for Comments: 6004 LabN Category: Standards Track D. Fedyk ISSN: 2070-1721 Alcatel-Lucent

                                                          October 2010
     Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support for Metro Ethernet Forum
               and G.8011 Ethernet Service Switching

Abstract

 This document describes a method for controlling two specific types
 of Ethernet switching via Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
 (GMPLS).  This document supports the types of switching corresponding
 to the Ethernet services that have been defined in the context of the
 Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) and International Telecommunication Union
 (ITU) G.8011.  Specifically, switching in support of Ethernet private
 line and Ethernet virtual private line services are covered.  Support
 for MEF- and ITU-defined parameters is also covered.

Status of This Memo

 This is an Internet Standards Track document.
 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
 (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
 received public review and has been approved for publication by the
 Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
 Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
 Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
 and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
 http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6004.

Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 1] RFC 6004 GMPLS Support for MEF and G.8011 October 2010

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2010 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
 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
    1.1. Overview ...................................................3
    1.2. Conventions Used in This Document ..........................4
 2. Common Signaling Support ........................................5
    2.1. Ethernet Endpoint Identification ...........................5
         2.1.1. Endpoint ID TLV .....................................5
                2.1.1.1. Procedures .................................6
    2.2. Connection Identification ..................................6
         2.2.1. Procedures ..........................................6
    2.3. Traffic Parameters .........................................7
         2.3.1. L2 Control Protocol TLV .............................7
    2.4. Bundling and VLAN Identification ...........................9
 3. EPL Service .....................................................9
    3.1. EPL Service Parameters .....................................9
 4. EVPL Service ...................................................10
    4.1. EVPL Generalized Label Format .............................10
    4.2. Egress VLAN ID Control and VLAN ID Preservation ...........11
    4.3. Single Call - Single LSP ..................................11
    4.4. Single Call - Multiple LSPs ...............................11
 5. IANA Considerations ............................................12
    5.1. Endpoint ID Attributes TLV ................................12
    5.2. Line LSP Encoding .........................................12
    5.3. Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) Switching Type .......12
 6. Security Considerations ........................................13
 7. References .....................................................13
    7.1. Normative References ......................................13
    7.2. Informative References ....................................14
 Acknowledgments ...................................................14

Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 2] RFC 6004 GMPLS Support for MEF and G.8011 October 2010

1. Introduction

 [MEF6] and [G.8011] provide parallel frameworks for defining network-
 oriented characteristics of Ethernet services in transport networks.
 The framework discusses general Ethernet connection characteristics,
 Ethernet User-Network Interfaces (UNIs) and Ethernet Network-Network
 Interfaces (NNIs).  Within this framework, [G.8011.1] defines the
 Ethernet Private Line (EPL) service and [G.8011.2] defines the
 Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) service. [MEF6] covers both
 service types.  [MEF10.1] defines service parameters and [MEF11]
 provides UNI requirements and framework.
 [MEF6] and [G.8011] are focused on service interfaces and not the
 underlying technology used to support the service.  For example,
 [G.8011] refers to the defined services being transported over one of
 several possible "server layers".  This document focuses on the types
 of switching that may directly support these services and provides a
 method for GMPLS-based control of such switching technologies.  This
 document defines the GMPLS extensions needed to support such
 switching, but does not define the UNI or External NNI (E-NNI)
 reference points.  See [RFC6005] for a description of the UNI
 reference point.  This document makes use of the traffic parameters
 defined in [RFC6003] and the generic extensions defined in [RFC6002].

1.1. Overview

 This document uses a common approach to supporting the switching
 corresponding to the Ethernet services defined in [MEF6], [G.8011.1],
 and [G.8011.2].  The approach builds on standard GMPLS mechanisms to
 deliver the required control capabilities.  This document reuses the
 GMPLS mechanisms specified in [RFC3473] and [RFC4974].  The document
 uses the extensions defined in [RFC6002].
 Two types of connectivity between Ethernet endpoints are defined in
 [MEF6] and [G.8011]: point-to-point (P2P) and multipoint-to-
 multipoint (MP2MP). [MEF6] uses the term Ethernet Line (E-line) to
 refer to point-to-point virtual connections, and Ethernet LAN (E-LAN)
 to refer to multipoint-to-multipoint virtual connections.  [G.8011]
 also identifies point-to-multipoint (P2MP) as an area for "further
 study".  Within the context of GMPLS, support is defined for point-
 to-point unidirectional and bidirectional Traffic Engineering Label
 Switched Paths (TE LSPs), see [RFC3473], and unidirectional point-to-
 multipoint TE LSPs, see [RFC4875].
 Support for P2P and MP2MP services is defined by [G.8011] and
 required by [MEF11].  Note that while [MEF11] and [G.8011] discuss
 MP2MP, [G.8011.1] and [G.8011.2] only define support for P2P.  There
 is a clear correspondence between E-Line/P2P service and GMPLS P2P TE

Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 3] RFC 6004 GMPLS Support for MEF and G.8011 October 2010

 LSPs, and support for such LSPs is included in the scope of this
 document.  There is no such clear correspondence between E-LAN/MP2MP
 service and GMPLS TE LSPs.  Although, it is possible to emulate this
 service using multiple P2P or P2MP TE LSPs, the definition of support
 for MP2MP service is left for future study and is not addressed in
 this document.
 [MEF11] defines multiple types of control for UNI Ethernet services.
 In MEF UNI Type 1, services are configured manually.  In MEF UNI Type
 2, services may be configured manually or via a link management
 interface.  In MEF UNI Type 3, services may be established and
 managed via a signaling interface.  From the MEF perspective, this
 document, along with [RFC6005], is aimed at the network control
 needed to support the MEF UNI Type 3 mode of operation.
 [G.8011.1], [G.8011.2], and [MEF11], together with [MEF10.1], define
 a set of service attributes that are associated with each Ethernet
 connection.  Some of these attributes are based on the provisioning
 of the local physical connection and are not modifiable or selectable
 per connection.  Other attributes are specific to a particular
 connection or must be consistent across the connection.  The approach
 taken in this document to communicate these attributes is to exclude
 the static class of attributes from signaling.  This class of
 attributes will not be explicitly discussed in this document.  The
 other class of attributes is communicated via signaling and will be
 reviewed in the sections below.  The major attributes that will be
 supported in signaling include:
  1. Endpoint identifiers
  2. Connection identifiers
  3. Traffic parameters (see [RFC6003])
  4. Bundling / VLAN IDs map (EVPL only)
  5. VLAN ID Preservation (EVPL only)
 Common procedures used to support Ethernet LSPs are described in
 Section 2 of this document.  Procedures related to the signaling of
 switching in support of EPL services are described in Section 3.
 Procedures related to the signaling of switching in support of EVPL
 services are described in Section 4.

1.2. 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 [RFC2119].

Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 4] RFC 6004 GMPLS Support for MEF and G.8011 October 2010

2. Common Signaling Support

 This section describes the common mechanisms for supporting GMPLS
 signaled control of LSPs that provide Ethernet connections as defined
 in [MEF11], [G.8011.1], and [G.8011.2].
 Except as specifically modified in this document, the procedures
 related to the processing of RSVP objects are not modified by this
 document.  The relevant procedures in existing documents, such as
 [RFC3473], MUST be followed in all cases not explicitly described in
 this document.

2.1. Ethernet Endpoint Identification

 Ethernet endpoint identifiers, as they are defined in [G.8011] and
 [MEF10.1], differ significantly from the identifiers used by GMPLS.
 Specifically, the Ethernet endpoint identifiers are character based
 as opposed to the GMPLS norm of being IP address based.
 The approach taken by this document to address this disparity
 leverages the solution used for connection identification, see
 Section 2.2 and [RFC4974], and a new CALL_ATTRIBUTES TLV defined in
 this document.  The solution makes use of the [RFC4974] short Call
 ID, and supports the Ethernet endpoint identifier similar to how
 [RFC4974] supports the long Call ID.  That is, the SENDER_TEMPLATE
 and SESSION objects carry IP addresses and a short Call ID, and long
 identifiers are carried in the CALL_ATTRIBUTES object.  As with the
 long Call ID, the Ethernet endpoint identifier is typically only
 relevant at the ingress and egress nodes.
 As defined below, the Ethernet endpoint identifier is carried in the
 CALL_ATTRIBUTES object in a new TLV.  The new TLV is referred to as
 the Endpoint ID TLV.  The processing of the Endpoint ID TLV parallels
 the processing of the long Call ID in [RFC4974].  This processing
 requires the inclusion of the CALL_ATTRIBUTES object in a Notify
 message.

2.1.1. Endpoint ID TLV

 The Endpoint ID TLV follows the Attributes TLV format defined in
 [RFC6001].  The Endpoint ID TLV has the following format:

Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 5] RFC 6004 GMPLS Support for MEF and G.8011 October 2010

 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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |           Type (30)           |      Length (variable)        |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                          Endpoint ID                          |
 |                              ...                              |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 Type and Length fields are defined in [RFC6001].  Note that as
 defined in [RFC6001], the Length field is set to length of the whole
 TLV including the Type, Length, and Endpoint ID fields.
 Endpoint ID
    The Endpoint ID field is a variable-size field that carries an
    endpoint identifier, see [MEF10.1] and [G.8011].  This field MUST
    be null padded as defined in [RFC6001].

2.1.1.1. Procedures

 The use of the Endpoint ID TLV is required during Call management.
 When a Call is established or torn down per [RFC4974], a
 CALL_ATTRIBUTES object containing an Endpoint ID TLV MUST be included
 in the Notify message along with the long Call ID.
 Short Call ID processing, including those procedures related to Call
 and connection processing, is not modified by this document and MUST
 proceed according to [RFC4974].

2.2. Connection Identification

 Signaling for Ethernet connections follows the procedures defined in
 [RFC4974].  In particular, the Call-related mechanisms are used to
 support endpoint identification.  In the context of Ethernet
 connections, a Call is only established when one or more LSPs
 (connections in [RFC4974] terms) are needed.  An LSP will always be
 established within the context of a Call and, typically, only one LSP
 will be used per Call.  See Section 4.4 for the case where more than
 one LSP may exist within a Call.

2.2.1. Procedures

 Any node that supports Ethernet connections MUST be able to accept
 and process Call setups per [RFC4974].  Ethernet connections
 established according to this document MUST treat the Ethernet
 (virtual) connection identifier as the long "Call identifier (ID)",

Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 6] RFC 6004 GMPLS Support for MEF and G.8011 October 2010

 described in [RFC4974].  The short Call ID MUST be used as described
 in [RFC4974].  Use of the LINK_CAPABILITY object is OPTIONAL.  Both
 network-initiated and user-initiated Calls MUST be supported.
 When establishing an Ethernet connection, the initiator MUST first
 establish a Call per the procedures defined in [RFC4974].  LSP
 management, including removal and addition, then follows [RFC4974].
 As stated in [RFC4974], once a Call is established, the initiator
 SHOULD establish at least one Ethernet LSP.  Also, when the last LSP
 associated with a Call is removed, the Call SHOULD be torn down per
 the procedures in [RFC4974].

2.3. Traffic Parameters

 Several types of service attributes are carried in the traffic
 parameters defined in [RFC6003].  These parameters are carried in the
 FLOWSPEC and TSPEC objects as discussed in [RFC6003].  The service
 attributes that are carried are:
  1. Bandwidth Profile
  2. VLAN Class of Service (CoS) Preservation
  3. Layer 2 Control Protocol (L2CP) Processing (see Section 2.3.1)
 Ethernet connections established according to this document MUST use
 the traffic parameters defined in [RFC6003] in the FLOWSPEC and TSPEC
 objects.  Additionally, the Switching Granularity field of the
 Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object MUST be set to zero (0).

2.3.1. L2 Control Protocol TLV

 [MEF10.1], [G.8011.1], and [G.8011.2] define service attributes that
 impact the layer two (L2) control protocol processing at the ingress
 and egress.  [RFC6003] does not define support for these service
 attributes, but does allow the attributes to be carried in a TLV.
 This section defines the L2CP TLV to carry the L2CP-processing-
 related service attributes.
 The format of the L2 Control Protocol (L2CP) TLV is as follows:
     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
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |             Type=3            |           Length=8            |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    | IL2CP | EL2CP |                  Reserved                     |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 7] RFC 6004 GMPLS Support for MEF and G.8011 October 2010

    See [RFC6003] for a description of the Type and Length fields.
    Per [RFC6003], the Type field MUST be set to three (3), and the
    Length field MUST be set to eight (8) for the L2CP TLV.
    Ingress Layer 2 Control Processing (IL2CP): 4 bits
       This field controls processing of Layer 2 Control Protocols on
       a receiving interface.  Valid usage is service specific, see
       [MEF10.1], [G.8011.1], and [G.8011.2].
       Permitted values are:
    Value  Description           Reference
    -----  -----------           ---------
      0    Reserved
      1    Discard/Block         [MEF10.1], [G.8011.1], and [G.8011.2]
      2    Peer/Process          [MEF10.1], [G.8011.1], and [G.8011.2]
      3    Pass to EVC/Pass      [MEF10.1], [G.8011.1], and [G.8011.2]
      4    Peer and Pass to EVC  [MEF10.1]
    Egress Layer 2 Control Processing (EL2CP): 4 bits
 This field controls processing of Layer 2 Control Protocols on a
 transmitting interface.  When MEF services are used a value of 1 MUST
 be used, other valid usage is service specific, see [G.8011.1] and
 [G.8011.2].
 Permitted values are:
 Value  Description             Reference
 -----  -----------             ---------
   0    Reserved
   1    Based on IL2CP Value    [MEF10.1]
   2    Generate                [G.8011.1] and [G.8011.2]
   3    None                    [G.8011.1] and [G.8011.2]
   4    Reserved
    Reserved: 24 bits
 This field is reserved.  It MUST be set to zero on transmission and
 MUST be ignored on receipt.  This field SHOULD be passed unmodified
 by transit nodes.
 Ethernet connections established according to this document MUST
 include the L2CP TLV in the [RFC6003] traffic parameters carried in
 the FLOWSPEC and TSPEC objects.

Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 8] RFC 6004 GMPLS Support for MEF and G.8011 October 2010

2.4. Bundling and VLAN Identification

 The control of bundling and listing of VLAN identifiers is only
 supported for EVPL services.  EVPL service specific details are
 provided in Section 4.

3. EPL Service

 Both [MEF6] and [G.8011.1] define an Ethernet Private Line (EPL)
 service.  In the words of [G.8011.1], EPL services carry "Ethernet
 characteristic information over dedicated bandwidth, point-to-point
 connections, provided by SDH, ATM, MPLS, PDH, ETY or OTH server layer
 networks".  [G.8011.1] defines two types of Ethernet Private Line
 (EPL) services.  Both types present a service where all data
 presented on a port is transported to the corresponding connected
 port.  The types differ in that EPL type 1 service operates at the
 MAC frame layer, while EPL type 2 service operates at the line (e.g.,
 8B/10B) encoding layer. [MEF6] only defines one type of EPL service,
 and it matches [G.8011.1] EPL type 1 service.  Signaling for LSPs
 that support both types of EPL services are detailed below.

3.1. EPL Service Parameters

 Signaling for the EPL service types only differ in the LSP Encoding
 Type used.  The LSP Encoding Type used for each are:
    EPL Service     LSP Encoding Type (Value)  Reference
    -----------     -------------------------  ---------
    Type 1/MEF      Ethernet (2)               [RFC3471]
    Type 2          Line (e.g., 8B/10B)(14)    [RFC6004]
 The other LSP parameters specific to EPL Service are:
    Parameter       Name (Value)       Reference
    --------------  -----------------  ------------------
    Switching Type  DCSC (125)         [RFC6002]
    G-PID           Ethernet PHY (33)  [RFC3471][RFC4328]
 The parameters defined in this section MUST be used when establishing
 and controlling LSPs that provide EPL service type Ethernet
 switching.  The procedures defined in Section 2 and the other
 procedures defined in [RFC3473] for the establishment and management
 of bidirectional LSPs MUST be followed when establishing and
 controlling LSPs that provide EPL service type Ethernet switching.

Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 9] RFC 6004 GMPLS Support for MEF and G.8011 October 2010

4. EVPL Service

 EVPL service is defined within the context of both [G.8011.2] and
 [MEF6].  EVPL service allows for multiple Ethernet connections per
 port, each of which supports a specific set of VLAN IDs.  The service
 attributes identify different forms of EVPL services, e.g., bundled
 or unbundled.  Independent of the different forms, LSPs supporting
 EVPL Ethernet type switching are signaled using the same mechanisms
 to communicate the one or more VLAN IDs associated with a particular
 LSP (Ethernet connection).
 The relevant [RFC3471] parameter values that MUST be used for EVPL
 connections are:
    Parameter          Name (Value)       Reference
    --------------     -----------------  ------------------
    Switching Type     EVPL (30)          [RFC6004]
    LSP Encoding Type  Ethernet (2)       [RFC3471]
    G-PID              Ethernet PHY (33)  [RFC3471][RFC4328]
 As with EPL, the procedures defined in Section 2 and the other
 procedures defined in [RFC3473] for the establishment and management
 of bidirectional LSPs MUST be followed when establishing and
 controlling LSPs that provide EVPL service type Ethernet switching.
 LSPs that provide EVPL service type Ethernet switching MUST use the
 EVPL Generalized Label Format per Section 4.1, and the Generalized
 Channel_Set Label Objects per [RFC6002].  A notable implication of
 bundled EVPL services and carrying multiple VLAN IDs is that a Path
 message may grow to be larger than a single (fragmented or non-
 fragmented) IP packet.  The basic approach to solving this is to
 allow for multiple LSPs which are associated with a single Call, see
 Section 2.2.  The specifics of this approach are describe below in
 Section 4.4.

4.1. EVPL Generalized Label Format

 Bundled EVPL services require the use of a service-specific label,
 called the EVPL Generalized Label.  For consistency, non-bundled EVPL
 services also use the same label.
 The format for the Generalized Label (Label Type value 2) used with
 EVPL services is:

Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 10] RFC 6004 GMPLS Support for MEF and G.8011 October 2010

    0                   1
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    | Rsvd  |        VLAN ID        |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    Reserved: 4 bits
       This field is reserved.  It MUST be set to zero on transmission
       and MUST be ignored on receipt.  This field SHOULD be passed
       unmodified by transit nodes.
    VLAN ID: 12 bits
       A VLAN identifier.

4.2. Egress VLAN ID Control and VLAN ID Preservation

 When an EVPL service is not configured for both bundling and VLAN ID
 preservation, [MEF6] allows VLAN ID mapping.  In particular, the
 single VLAN ID used at the incoming interface of the ingress may be
 mapped to a different VLAN ID at the outgoing interface at the egress
 UNI.  Such mapping MUST be requested and signaled based on the
 explicit label control mechanism defined in [RFC3473] and clarified
 in [RFC4003].
 When the explicit label control mechanism is not used, VLAN IDs MUST
 be preserved, i.e., not modified, across an LSP.

4.3. Single Call - Single LSP

 For simplicity in management, a single LSP SHOULD be used for each
 EVPL type LSP whose Path and Resv messages fit within a single
 unfragmented IP packet.  This allows the reuse of all standard LSP
 modification procedures.  Of particular note is the modification of
 the VLAN IDs associated with the Ethernet connection.  Specifically,
 [RFC6002], make-before-break procedures SHOULD be used to modify the
 Channel_Set LABEL object.

4.4. Single Call - Multiple LSPs

 Multiple LSPs MAY be used to support an EVPL service connection.  All
 such LSPs MUST be established within the same Call and follow Call-
 related procedures, see Section 2.2.  The primary purpose of multiple
 LSPs is to support the case in which the related objects result in a
 Path message being larger than a single unfragmented IP packet.

Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 11] RFC 6004 GMPLS Support for MEF and G.8011 October 2010

 When using multiple LSPs, all LSPs associated with the same Call/EVPL
 connection MUST be signaled with the same LSP objects with the
 exception of the SENDER_TEMPLATE, SESSION, and label-related objects.
 All such LSPs SHOULD share resources.  When using multiple LSPs, VLAN
 IDs MAY be added to the EVPL connection using either a new LSP or
 make-before-break procedures, see [RFC3209].  Make-before-break
 procedures on individual LSPs SHOULD be used to remove VLAN IDs.
 To change other service parameters it is necessary to re-signal all
 LSPs associated with the Call via make-before-break procedures.

5. IANA Considerations

 IANA has assigned new values for namespaces defined in this document
 and summarized in this section.  The registries are available from
 http://www.iana.org.

5.1. Endpoint ID Attributes TLV

 IANA has made the following assignment in the "Call Attributes TLV"
 section of the "RSVP Parameters" registry.
 Type  Name         Reference
 ----  -----------  ---------
 2    Endpoint ID   [RFC6004]

5.2. Line LSP Encoding

 IANA has made the following assignment in the "LSP Encoding Types"
 section of the "GMPLS Signaling Parameters" registry.
 Value   Type                                 Reference
 -----   ---------------------------          ---------
    14   Line (e.g., 8B/10B)                  [RFC6004]

5.3. Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) Switching Type

 IANA has made the following assignment in the "Switching Types"
 section of the "GMPLS Signaling Parameters" registry.
 Value   Type                                      Reference
 -----   ------------------------------------      ---------
    30   Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL)      [RFC6004]
 The assigned value has been reflected in IANAGmplsSwitchingTypeTC of
 the IANA-GMPLS-TC-MIB available from http://www.iana.org.

Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 12] RFC 6004 GMPLS Support for MEF and G.8011 October 2010

6. 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 Label Switching Routers
 (LSRs) that are adjacent in the control plane.  As such, this
 document introduces no additional security considerations to those
 discussed in [RFC3473].

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.
 [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.
 [RFC3471]  Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
            Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC
            3471, January 2003.
 [RFC3473]  Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
            Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-
            Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473,
            January 2003.
 [RFC4003]  Berger, L., "GMPLS Signaling Procedure for Egress
            Control", RFC 4003, February 2005.
 [RFC4974]  Papadimitriou, D. and A. Farrel, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
            RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in Support of Calls", RFC
            4974, August 2007.
 [RFC6001]  Papadimitriou, D., Vigoureux, M., Shiomoto, K., Brungard,
            D. and JL. Le Roux, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Protocol
            Extensions for Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks
            (MLN/MRN)", RFC 6001, October 2010.
 [RFC6002]  Berger, L. and D. Fedyk, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Data
            Channel Switching Capable (DCSC) and Channel Set Label
            Extensions", RFC 6002, October 2010.
 [RFC6003]  Papadimitriou, D., "Ethernet Traffic Parameters," RFC
            6003, October 2010.

Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 13] RFC 6004 GMPLS Support for MEF and G.8011 October 2010

7.2. Informative References

 [G.8011]   ITU-T G.8011/Y.1307, "Ethernet over Transport Ethernet
            services framework", August 2004.
 [G.8011.1] ITU-T G.G.8011.1/Y.1307.1, "Ethernet private line
            service", August 2004.
 [G.8011.2] ITU-T G.8011.2/Y.1307.2, "Ethernet virtual private line
            service", September 2005.
 [MEF6]     The Metro Ethernet Forum, "Ethernet Services Definitions -
            Phase I", MEF 6, June 2004.
 [MEF10.1]  The Metro Ethernet Forum, "Ethernet Services Attributes
            Phase 2", MEF 10.1, November 2006.
 [MEF11]    The Metro Ethernet Forum , "User Network Interface (UNI)
            Requirements and Framework", MEF 11, November 2004.
 [RFC4328]  Papadimitriou, D., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
            Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical
            Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328, January 2006.
 [RFC4875]  Aggarwal, R., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Ed., and S.
            Yasukawa, Ed., "Extensions to Resource Reservation
            Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-
            Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875, May
            2007.
 [RFC6005]  Berger, L. and D. Fedyk,"Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support
            for Metro Ethernet Forum and G.8011 User Network Interface
            (UNI)", RFC 6005, October 2010.

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 Yoav
 Cohen for their valuable comments.

Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 14] RFC 6004 GMPLS Support for MEF and G.8011 October 2010

Authors' Addresses

 Lou Berger
 LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
 Phone: +1-301-468-9228
 EMail: lberger@labn.net
 Don Fedyk
 Alcatel-Lucent
 Groton, MA 01450
 Phone: +1-978-467-5645
 EMail: donald.fedyk@alcatel-lucent.com

Berger & Fedyk Standards Track [Page 15]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc6004.txt · Last modified: 2010/10/10 22:48 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki