|
|
|
|
|
|
IETF RFC 3471
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description
Last modified on Wednesday, February 12th, 2003
 Permanent link to RFC 3471
 Search GitHub Wiki for RFC 3471
 Show other RFCs mentioning RFC 3471
Network Working Group L. Berger, Editor
Request for Comments: 3471 Movaz Networks
Category: Standards Track January 2003
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Signaling Functional Description
 Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright © The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document describes extensions to Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(MPLS) signaling required to support Generalized MPLS. Generalized
MPLS extends the MPLS control plane to encompass time-division (e.g.,
Synchronous Optical Network and Synchronous Digital Hierarchy,
SONET/SDH), wavelength (optical lambdas) and spatial switching (e.g.,
incoming port or fiber to outgoing port or fiber). This document
presents a functional description of the extensions. Protocol
specific formats and mechanisms, and technology specific details are
specified in separate documents.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ............................................... 2
2. Overview .................................................. 3
3. Label Related Formats ..................................... 6
3.1 Generalized Label Request ............................... 6
3.2 Generalized Label ....................................... 11
3.3 Waveband Switching ...................................... 12
3.4 Suggested Label ......................................... 13
3.5 Label Set ............................................... 14
4. Bidirectional LSPs ......................................... 16
4.1 Required Information .................................... 17
4.2 Contention Resolution ................................... 17
5. Notification on Label Error ................................ 20
6. Explicit Label Control ..................................... 20
6.1 Required Information .................................... 21
Berger Standards Track PAGE 1 
RFC 3471 GMPLS Signaling Functional Description
7. Protection Information ..................................... 21
7.1 Required Information .................................... 22
8. Administrative Status Information .......................... 23
8.1 Required Information .................................... 24
9. Control Channel Separation ................................. 25
9.1 Interface Identification ................................ 25
9.2 Fault Handling .......................................... 27
10. Acknowledgments ............................................ 27
11. Security Considerations .................................... 28
12. IANA Considerations ........................................ 28
13. Intellectual Property Considerations ....................... 29
14. References ................................................. 29
14.1 Normative References ................................... 29
14.2 Informative References ................................. 30
15. Contributors ............................................... 31
16. Editor's Address ........................................... 33
17. Full Copyright Statement ................................... 34
1. Introduction
The Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) architecture [RFC 3031] has
been defined to support the forwarding of data based on a label. In
this architecture, Label Switching Routers (LSRs) were assumed to
have a forwarding plane that is capable of (a) recognizing either
packet or cell boundaries, and (b) being able to process either
packet headers (for LSRs capable of recognizing packet boundaries) or
cell headers (for LSRs capable of recognizing cell boundaries).
The original architecture has recently been extended to include LSRs
whose forwarding plane recognizes neither packet, nor cell
boundaries, and therefore, can't forward data based on the
information carried in either packet or cell headers. Specifically,
such LSRs include devices where the forwarding decision is based on
time slots, wavelengths, or physical ports.
Given the above, LSRs, or more precisely interfaces on LSRs, can be
subdivided into the following classes:
1. Interfaces that recognize packet/cell boundaries and can forward
data based on the content of the packet/cell header. Examples
include interfaces on routers that forward data based on the
content of the "shim" header, interfaces on (Asynchronous Transfer
Mode) ATM-LSRs that forward data based on the ATM VPI/VCI. Such
interfaces are referred to as Packet-Switch Capable (PSC).
Berger Standards Track PAGE 2
RFC 3471 GMPLS Signaling Functional Description
2. Interfaces that forward data based on the data's time slot in a
repeating cycle. An example of such an interface is an interface
on a SONET/SDH Cross-Connect. Such interfaces are referred to as
Time-Division Multiplex Capable (TDM).
3. Interfaces that forward data based on the wavelength on which the
data is received. An example of such an interface is an interface
on an Optical Cross-Connect that can operate at the level of an
individual wavelength. Such interfaces are referred to as Lambda
Switch Capable (LSC).
4. Interfaces that forward data based on a position of the data in
the real world physical spaces. An example of such an interface
is an interface on an Optical Cross-Connect that can operate at
the level of a single (or multiple) fibers. Such interfaces are
referred to as Fiber-Switch Capable (FSC).
Using the concept of nested Label Switched Paths (LSPs) allows the
system to scale by building a forwarding hierarchy. At the top of
this hierarchy are FSC interfaces, followed by LSC interfaces,
followed by TDM interfaces, followed by PSC interfaces. This way, an
LSP that starts and ends on a PSC interface can be nested (together
with other LSPs) into an LSP that starts and ends on a TDM interface.
This LSP, in turn, can be nested (together with other LSPs) into an
LSP that starts and ends on an LSC interface, which in turn can be
nested (together with other LSPs) into an LSP that starts and ends on
a FSC interface. See [MPLS-HIERARCHY] for more information on LSP
hierarchies.
The establishment of LSPs that span only the first class of
interfaces is defined in [RFC 3036, RFC 3212, RFC 3209]. This document
presents a functional description of the extensions needed to
generalize the MPLS control plane to support each of the four classes
of interfaces. Only signaling protocol independent formats and
definitions are provided in this document. Protocol specific formats
are defined in [RFC 3473] and [RFC 3472]. Technology specific details
are outside the scope of this document and will be specified in
technology specific documents, such as [GMPLS-SONET].
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].
2. Overview
Generalized MPLS differs from traditional MPLS in that it supports
multiple types of switching, i.e., the addition of support for TDM,
lambda, and fiber (port) switching. The support for the additional
Berger Standards Track PAGE 3
RFC 3471 GMPLS Signaling Functional Description
types of switching has driven generalized MPLS to extend certain base
functions of traditional MPLS and, in some cases, to add
functionality. These changes and additions impact basic LSP
properties, how labels are requested and communicated, the
unidirectional nature of LSPs, how errors are propagated, and
information provided for synchronizing the ingress and egress.
In traditional MPLS Traffic Engineering, links traversed by an LSP
can include an intermix of links with heterogeneous label encodings.
For example, an LSP may span links between routers, links between
routers and ATM-LSRs, and links between ATM-LSRs. Generalized MPLS
extends this by including links where the label is encoded as a time
slot, or a wavelength, or a position in the real world physical
space. Just like with traditional MPLS TE, where not all LSRs are
capable of recognizing (IP) packet boundaries (e.g., an ATM-LSR) in
their forwarding plane, generalized MPLS includes support for LSRs
that can't recognize (IP) packet boundaries in their forwarding
plane. In traditional MPLS TE an LSP that carries IP has to start
and end on a router. Generalized MPLS extends this by requiring an
LSP to start and end on similar type of LSRs. Also, in generalized
MPLS the type of a payload that can be carried by an LSP is extended
to allow such payloads as SONET/SDH, or 1 or 10Gb Ethernet. These
changes from traditional MPLS are reflected in how labels are
requested and communicated in generalized MPLS, see Sections 3.1 and
3.2. A special case of Lambda switching, called Waveband switching
is also described in Section 3.3.
Another basic difference between traditional and non-PSC types of
generalized MPLS LSPs, is that bandwidth allocation for an LSP can be
performed only in discrete units, see Section 3.1.3. There are also
likely to be (much) fewer labels on non-PSC links than on PSC links.
Note that the use of Forwarding Adjacencies (FA), see [MPLS-
HIERARCHY], provides a mechanism that may improve bandwidth
utilization, when bandwidth allocation can be performed only in
discrete units, as well as a mechanism to aggregate forwarding state,
thus allowing the number of required labels to be reduced.
Generalized MPLS allows for a label to be suggested by an upstream
node, see Section 3.4. This suggestion may be overridden by a
downstream node but, in some cases, at the cost of higher LSP setup
time. The suggested label is valuable when establishing LSPs through
certain kinds of optical equipment where there may be a lengthy (in
electrical terms) delay in configuring the switching fabric. For
example micro mirrors may have to be elevated or moved, and this
physical motion and subsequent damping takes time. If the labels and
hence switching fabric are configured in the reverse direction (the
Berger Standards Track PAGE 4
RFC 3471 GMPLS Signaling Functional Description
norm) the MAPPING/Resv message may need to be delayed by 10's of
milliseconds per hop in order to establish a usable forwarding path.
The suggested label is also valuable when recovering from nodal
faults.
Generalized MPLS extends on the notion of restricting the range of
labels that may be selected by a downstream node, see Section 3.5.
In generalized MPLS, an ingress or other upstream node may restrict
the labels that may be used by an LSP along either a single hop or
along the whole LSP path. This feature is driven from the optical
domain where there are cases where wavelengths used by the path must
be restricted either to a small subset of possible wavelengths, or to
one specific wavelength. This requirement occurs because some
equipment may only be able to generate a small set of the wavelengths
that intermediate equipment may be able to switch, or because
intermediate equipment may not be able to switch a wavelength at all,
being only able to redirect it to a different fiber.
While traditional traffic engineered MPLS (and even LDP) are
unidirectional, generalized MPLS supports the establishment of
bidirectional LSPs, see Section 4. The need for bidirectional LSPs
comes from non-PSC applications. There are multiple reasons why such
LSPs are needed, particularly possible resource contention when
allocating reciprocal LSPs via separate signaling sessions, and
simplifying failure restoration procedures in the non-PSC case.
Bidirectional LSPs also have the benefit of lower setup latency and
lower number of messages required during setup.
Generalized MPLS supports the communication of a specific label to
use on a specific interface, see Section 6. [RFC 3473] also supports
an RSVP specific mechanism for rapid failure notification.
Generalized MPLS formalizes possible separation of control and data
channels, see Section 9. Such support is particularly important to
support technologies where control traffic cannot be sent in-band
with the data traffic.
Generalized MPLS also allows for the inclusion of technology specific
parameters in signaling. The intent is for all technology specific
parameters to be carried, when using RSVP, in the SENDER_TSPEC and
other related objects, and when using CR-LDP, in the Traffic
Parameters TLV. Technology specific formats will be defined on an as
needed basis. For an example definition, see [GMPLS-SONET].
Berger Standards Track PAGE 5
RFC 3471 GMPLS Signaling Functional Description
3. Label Related Formats
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". A
generalized label contains enough information to allow the receiving
node to program its cross connect, regardless of the type of this
cross connect, such that the ingress segments of the path are
properly joined. This section defines a generalized label request, a
generalized label, support for waveband switching, suggested label
and label sets.
Note that since the nodes sending and receiving the new form of label
know what kinds of link they are using, the generalized label does
not contain a type field, instead the nodes are expected to know from
context what type of label to expect.
3.1. Generalized Label Request
The Generalized Label Request supports communication of
characteristics required to support the LSP being requested. These
characteristics include LSP encoding and LSP payload. Note that
these characteristics may be used by transit nodes, e.g., to support
penultimate hop popping.
The Generalized Label Request carries an LSP encoding parameter,
called LSP Encoding Type. This parameter indicates the encoding
type, e.g., SONET/SDH/GigE etc., that will be used with the data
associated with the LSP. The LSP Encoding Type represents the nature
of the LSP, and not the nature of the links that the LSP traverses.
A link may support a set of encoding formats, where support means
that a link is able to carry and switch a signal of one or more of
these encoding formats depending on the resource availability and
capacity of the link. For example, consider an LSP signaled with
"lambda" encoding. It is expected that such an LSP would be
supported with no electrical conversion and no knowledge of the
modulation and speed by the transit nodes. Other formats normally
require framing knowledge, and field parameters are broken into the
framing type and speed as shown below.
The Generalized Label Request also indicates the type of switching
that is being requested on a link. This field normally is consistent
across all links of an LSP.
Berger Standards Track PAGE 6
RFC 3471 GMPLS Signaling Functional Description
3.1.1. Required Information
The information carried in a Generalized Label Request 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LSP Enc. Type |Switching Type | G-PID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
LSP Encoding Type: 8 bits
Indicates the encoding of the LSP being requested. The
following shows permitted values and their meaning:
Value Type
----- ----
1 Packet
2 Ethernet
3 ANSI/ETSI PDH
4 Reserved
5 SDH ITU-T G.707 / SONET ANSI T1.105
6 Reserved
7 Digital Wrapper
8 Lambda (photonic)
9 Fiber
10 Reserved
11 FiberChannel
The ANSI PDH and ETSI PDH types designate these respective
networking technologies. DS1 and DS3 are examples of ANSI PDH
LSPs. An E1 LSP would be ETSI PDH. The Lambda encoding type
refers to an LSP that encompasses a whole wavelengths. The
Fiber encoding type refers to an LSP that encompasses a whole
fiber port.
Berger Standards Track PAGE 7
RFC 3471 GMPLS Signaling Functional Description
Switching Type: 8 bits
Indicates the type of switching that should be performed on a
particular link. This field is needed for links that advertise
more than one type of switching capability. This field should
map to one of the values advertised for the corresponding link
in the routing Switching Capability Descriptor, see [GMPLS-
RTG].
The following are currently defined values:
Value Type
----- ----
1 Packet-Switch Capable-1 (PSC-1)
2 Packet-Switch Capable-2 (PSC-2)
3 Packet-Switch Capable-3 (PSC-3)
4 Packet-Switch Capable-4 (PSC-4)
51 Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC)
100 Time-Division-Multiplex Capable (TDM)
150 Lambda-Switch Capable (LSC)
200 Fiber-Switch Capable (FSC)
Berger Standards Track PAGE 8
RFC 3471 GMPLS Signaling Functional Description
Generalized PID (G-PID): 16 bits
An identifier of the payload carried by an LSP, i.e., an
identifier of the client layer of that LSP. This is used by
the nodes at the endpoints of the LSP, and in some cases by the
penultimate hop. Standard Ethertype values are used for packet
and Ethernet LSPs; other values are:
Value Type Technology
----- ---- ----------
0 Unknown All
1 Reserved
2 Reserved
3 Reserved
4 Reserved
5 Asynchronous mapping of E4 SDH
6 Asynchronous mapping of DS3/T3 SDH
7 Asynchronous mapping of E3 SDH
8 Bit synchronous mapping of E3 SDH
9 Byte synchronous mapping of E3 SDH
10 Asynchronous mapping of DS2/T2 SDH
11 Bit synchronous mapping of DS2/T2 SDH
12 Reserved
13 Asynchronous mapping of E1 SDH
14 Byte synchronous mapping of E1 SDH
15 Byte synchronous mapping of 31 * DS0 SDH
16 Asynchronous mapping of DS1/T1 SDH
17 Bit synchronous mapping of DS1/T1 SDH
18 Byte synchronous mapping of DS1/T1 SDH
19 VC-11 in VC-12 SDH
20 Reserved
21 Reserved
22 DS1 SF Asynchronous SONET
23 DS1 ESF Asynchronous SONET
24 DS3 M23 Asynchronous SONET
25 DS3 C-Bit Parity Asynchronous SONET
26 VT/LOVC SDH
27 STS SPE/HOVC SDH
28 POS - No Scrambling, 16 bit CRC SDH
29 POS - No Scrambling, 32 bit CRC SDH
30 POS - Scrambling, 16 bit CRC SDH
31 POS - Scrambling, 32 bit CRC SDH
32 ATM mapping SDH
33 Ethernet SDH, Lambda, Fiber
34 SONET/SDH Lambda, Fiber
35 Reserved (SONET deprecated) Lambda, Fiber
36 Digital Wrapper Lambda, Fiber
37 Lambda Fiber
Berger Standards Track PAGE 9
RFC 3471 GMPLS Signaling Functional Description
38 ANSI/ETSI PDH SDH
39 Reserved SDH
40 Link Access Protocol SDH SDH
(LAPS - X.85 and X.86)
41 FDDI SDH, Lambda, Fiber
42 DQDB (ETSI ETS 300 216) SDH
43 FiberChannel-3 (Services) FiberChannel
44 HDLC SDH
45 Ethernet V2/DIX (only) SDH, Lambda, Fiber
46 Ethernet 802.3 (only) SDH, Lambda, Fiber
3.1.2. Bandwidth Encoding
Bandwidth encodings are carried in 32 bit number in IEEE floating
point format (the unit is bytes per second). For non-packet LSPs, it
is useful to define discrete values to identify the bandwidth of the
LSP. Some typical values for the requested bandwidth are enumerated
below. (These values are guidelines.) Additional values will be
defined as needed. Bandwidth encoding values are carried in a per
protocol specific manner, see [RFC 3473] and [RFC 3472].
Signal Type (Bit-rate) Value (Bytes/Sec)
(IEEE Floating point)
-------------- --------------- ---------------------
DS0 (0.064 Mbps) 0x45FA0000
DS1 (1.544 Mbps) 0x483C7A00
E1 (2.048 Mbps) 0x487A0000
DS2 (6.312 Mbps) 0x4940A080
E2 (8.448 Mbps) 0x4980E800
Ethernet (10.00 Mbps) 0x49989680
E3 (34.368 Mbps) 0x4A831A80
DS3 (44.736 Mbps) 0x4AAAA780
STS-1 (51.84 Mbps) 0x4AC5C100
Fast Ethernet (100.00 Mbps) 0x4B3EBC20
E4 (139.264 Mbps) 0x4B84D000
FC-0 133M 0x4B7DAD68
OC-3/STM-1 (155.52 Mbps) 0x4B9450C0
FC-0 266M 0x4BFDAD68
FC-0 531M 0x4C7D3356
OC-12/STM-4 (622.08 Mbps) 0x4C9450C0
GigE (1000.00 Mbps) 0x4CEE6B28
FC-0 1062M 0x4CFD3356
OC-48/STM-16 (2488.32 Mbps) 0x4D9450C0
OC-192/STM-64 (9953.28 Mbps) 0x4E9450C0
10GigE-LAN (10000.00 Mbps) 0x4E9502F9
OC-768/STM-256 (39813.12 Mbps) 0x4F9450C0
Berger Standards Track PAGE 10
RFC 3471 GMPLS Signaling Functional Description
3.2. 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. For example,
the Generalized Label may carry a label that represents (a) a single
fiber in a bundle, (b) a single waveband within fiber, (c) a single
wavelength within a waveband (or fiber), or (d) a set of time-slots
within a wavelength (or fiber). It may also carry a label that
represents a generic MPLS label, a Frame Relay label, or an ATM label
(VCI/VPI).
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, see [MPLS-
HIERARCHY].
Each Generalized Label object/TLV carries a variable length label
parameter.
3.2.1. Required Information
The information carried in a Generalized 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label |
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Label: Variable Length
Carries label information. The interpretation of this field
depends on the type of the link over which the label is used.
3.2.1.1. Port and Wavelength Labels
Some configurations of fiber switching (FSC) and lambda switching
(LSC) use multiple data channels/links controlled by a single control
channel. In such cases the label indicates the data channel/link to
be used for the LSP. Note that this case is not the same as when
[MPLS-BUNDLE] is being used.
Berger Standards Track PAGE 11
RFC 3471 GMPLS Signaling Functional Description
The information carried in a Port and Wavelength 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Label: 32 bits
Indicates port/fiber or lambda to be used, from the perspective of
the sender of the object/TLV. Values used in this field only have
significance between two neighbors, and the receiver may need to
convert the received value into a value that has local
significance. Values may be configured or dynamically determined
using a protocol such as [LMP].
3.2.1.2. Other Labels
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.
3.3. Waveband Switching
A special case of lambda switching is waveband switching. A waveband
represents a set of contiguous wavelengths which can be switched
together to a new waveband. For optimization reasons it may be
desirable for an optical cross connect to optically switch multiple
wavelengths as a unit. This may reduce the distortion on the
individual wavelengths and may allow tighter separation of the
individual wavelengths. The Waveband Label is defined to support
this special case.
Waveband switching naturally introduces another level of label
hierarchy and as such the waveband is treated the same way all other
upper layer labels are treated.
As far as the MPLS protocols are concerned there is little difference
between a waveband label and a wavelength label except that
semantically the waveband can be subdivided into wavelengths whereas
the wavelength can only be subdivided into time or statistically
multiplexed labels.
Berger Standards Track PAGE 12
RFC 3471 GMPLS Signaling Functional Description
3.3.1. Required information
Waveband switching uses the same format as the generalized label, see
section 3.2.1.
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.
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 are established either by configuration or by
means of a protocol such as LMP [LMP]. They are normally used in the
label parameter of the Generalized Label one PSC and LSC.
3.4. Suggested Label
The Suggested Label is used to provide a downstream node with the
upstream node's label preference. This permits the upstream node to
start configuring its hardware with the proposed label before the
label is communicated by the downstream node. Such early
configuration is valuable to systems that take non-trivial time to
establish a label in hardware. Such early configuration can reduce
Berger Standards Track PAGE 13
RFC 3471 GMPLS Signaling Functional Description
setup latency, and may be important for restoration purposes where
alternate LSPs may need to be rapidly established as a result of
network failures.
The use of Suggested Label is only an optimization. If a downstream
node passes a different label upstream, an upstream LSR reconfigures
itself so that it uses the label specified by the downstream node,
thereby maintaining the downstream control of a label. Note, the
transmission of a suggested label does not imply that the suggested
label is available for use. In particular, an ingress node should
not transmit data traffic on a suggested label until the downstream
node passes a label upstream.
The information carried in a suggested label is identical to a
generalized label. Note, values used in the label field of a
suggested label are from the object/TLV sender's perspective.
3.5. Label Set
The Label Set is used to limit the label choices of a downstream node
to a set of acceptable labels. This limitation applies on a per hop
basis.
We describe four cases where a Label Set is useful in the optical
domain. The first case is where the end equipment is only capable of
transmitting on a small specific set of wavelengths/bands. The
second case is where there is a sequence of interfaces which cannot
support wavelength conversion (CI-incapable) and require the same
wavelength be used end-to-end over a sequence of hops, or even an
entire path. The third case is where it is desirable to limit the
amount of wavelength conversion being performed to reduce the
distortion on the optical signals. The last case is where two ends
of a link support different sets of wavelengths.
Label Set is used to restrict label ranges that may be used for a
particular LSP between two peers. The receiver of a Label Set must
restrict its choice of labels to one which is in the Label Set. Much
like a label, a Label Set may be present across multiple hops. In
this case each node generates its own outgoing Label Set, possibly
based on the incoming Label Set and the node's hardware capabilities.
This case is expected to be the norm for nodes with conversion
incapable (CI-incapable) interfaces.
The use of Label Set is optional, if not present, all labels from the
valid label range may be used. Conceptually the absence of a Label
Set implies a Label Set whose value is {U}, the set of all valid
labels.
Berger Standards Track PAGE 14
RFC 3471 GMPLS Signaling Functional Description
3.5.1. Required Information
A label set is composed of one or more Label_Set objects/TLVs. Each
object/TLV contains one or more elements of the Label Set. Each
element is referred to as a subchannel identifier and has the same
format as a generalized label.
The information carried in a Label_Set 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Action | Reserved | Label Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Subchannel 1 |
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: : :
: : :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Subchannel N |
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Action: 8 bits
0 - Inclusive List
Indicates that the object/TLV contains one or more subchannel
elements that are included in the Label Set.
1 - Exclusive List
Indicates that the object/TLV contains one or more subchannel
elements that are excluded from the Label Set.
2 - Inclusive Range
Indicates that the object/TLV contains a range of labels. The
object/TLV contains two subchannel elements. The first element
indicates the start of the range. The second element indicates
the end of the range. A value of zero indicates that there is
no bound on the corresponding portion of the range.
Berger Standards Track PAGE 15
RFC 3471 GMPLS Signaling Functional Description
3 - Exclusive Range
Indicates that the object/TLV contains a range of labels that
are excluded from the Label Set. The object/TLV contains two
subchannel elements. The first element indicates the start of
the range. The second element indicates the end of the range.
A value of zero indicates that there is no bound on the
corresponding portion of the range.
Reserved: 10 bits
This field is reserved. It MUST be set to zero on transmission and
MUST be ignored on receipt.
Label Type: 14 bits
Indicates the type and format of the labels carried in the
object/TLV. Values are signaling protocol specific.
Subchannel:
The subchannel represents the label (wavelength, fiber ... ) which
is eligible for allocation. This field has the same format as
described for labels under section 3.2.
Note that subchannel to local channel identifiers (e.g.,
wavelength) mappings are a local matter.
4. Bidirectional LSPs
This section defines direct support of bidirectional LSPs. Support
is defined for LSPs that have the same traffic engineering
requirements including fate sharing, protection and restoration,
LSRs, and resource requirements (e.g., latency and jitter) in each
direction. In the remainder of this section, the term "initiator" is
used to refer to a node that starts the establishment of an LSP and
the term "terminator" is used to refer to the node that is the target
of the LSP. Note that for bidirectional LSPs, there is only one
"initiator" and one "terminator".
Normally to establish a bidirectional LSP when using [RFC 3209] or
[RFC 3212] two unidirectional paths must be independently established.
This approach has the following disadvantages:
* The latency to establish the bidirectional LSP is equal to one
round trip signaling time plus one initiator-terminator signaling
transit delay. This not only extends the setup latency for
successful LSP establishment, but it extends the worst-case
Berger Standards Track PAGE 16
RFC 3471 GMPLS Signaling Functional Description
latency for discovering an unsuccessful LSP to as much as two
times the initiator-terminator transit delay. These delays are
particularly significant for LSPs that are established for
restoration purposes.
* The control overhead is twice that of a unidirectional LSP. This
is because separate control messages (e.g., Path and Resv) must be
generated for both segments of the bidirectional LSP.
* Because the resources are established in separate segments, route
selection is complicated. There is also additional potential race
for conditions in assignment of resources, which decreases the
overall probability of successfully establishing the bidirectional
connection.
* It is more difficult to provide a clean interface for SONET/SDH
equipment that may rely on bidirectional hop-by-hop paths for
protection switching.
* Bidirectional optical LSPs (or lightpaths) are seen as a
requirement for many optical networking service providers.
With bidirectional LSPs both the downstream and upstream data paths,
i.e., from initiator to terminator and terminator to initiator, they
are established using a single set of signaling messages. This
reduces the setup latency to essentially one initiator-terminator
round trip time plus processing time, and limits the control overhead
to the same number of messages as a unidirectional LSP.
4.1. Required Information
For bidirectional LSPs, two labels must be allocated. Bidirectional
LSP setup is indicated by the presence of an Upstream Label
object/TLV in the appropriate signaling message. An Upstream Label
has the same format as the generalized label, see Section 3.2.
4.2. Contention Resolution
Contention for labels may occur between two bidirectional LSP setup
requests traveling in opposite directions. This contention occurs
when both sides allocate the same resources (labels) at effectively
the same time. If there is no restriction on the labels that can be
used for bidirectional LSPs and if there are alternate resources,
then both nodes will pass different labels upstream and there is no
contention. However, if there is a restriction on the labels that
can be used for the bidirectional LSPs (for example, if they must be
physically coupled on a single I/O card), or if there are no more
resources available, then the contention must be resolved by other
Berger Standards Track PAGE 17
RFC 3471 GMPLS Signaling Functional Description
means. To resolve contention, the node with the higher node ID will
win the contention and it MUST issue a PathErr/NOTIFICATION message
with a "Routing problem/Label allocation failure" indication. Upon
receipt of such an error, the node SHOULD try to allocate a different
Upstream label (and a different Suggested Label if used) to the
bidirectional path. However, if no other resources are available,
the node must proceed with standard error handling.
To reduce the probability of contention, one may impose a policy that
the node with the lower ID never suggests a label in the downstream
direction and always accepts a Suggested Label from an upstream node
with a higher ID. Furthermore, since the labels may be exchanged
using LMP, an alternative local policy could further be imposed such
that (with respect to the higher numbered node's label set) the
higher numbered node could allocate labels from the high end of the
label range while the lower numbered node allocates labels from the
low end of the label range. This mechanism would augment any close
packing algorithms that may be used for bandwidth (or wavelength)
optimization. One special case that should be noted when using RSVP
and supporting this approach is that the neighbor's node ID might not
be known when sending an initial Path message. When this case
occurs, a node should suggest a label chosen at random from the
available label space.
An example of contention between two nodes (PXC 1 and PXC 2) is shown
in Figure 1. In this example PXC 1 assigns an Upstream Label for the
channel corresponding to local BCId=2 (local BCId=7 on PXC 2) and
sends a Suggested Label for the channel corresponding to local BCId=1
(local BCId=6 on PXC 2). Simultaneously, PXC 2 assigns an Upstream
Label for the channel corresponding to its local BCId=6 (local BCId=1
on PXC 1) and sends a Suggested Label for the channel corresponding
to its local BCId=7 (local BCId=2 on PXC 1). If there is no
restriction on the labels that can be used for bidirectional LSPs and
if there are alternate resources available, then both PXC 1 and PXC 2
will pass different labels upstream and the contention is resolved
naturally (see Fig. 2). However, if there is a restriction on the
labels that can be used for bidirectional LSPs (for example, if they
must be physically coupled on a single I/O card), then the contention
must be resolved using the node ID (see Fig. 3).
Berger Standards Track PAGE 18
RFC 3471 GMPLS Signaling Functional Description
+------------+ +------------+
+ PXC 1 + + PXC 2 +
+ + SL1,UL2 + +
+ 1 +------------------------>+ 6 +
+ + UL1, SL2 + +
+ 2 +<------------------------+ 7 +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ 3 +------------------------>+ 8 +
+ + + +
+ 4 +<------------------------+ 9 +
+------------+ +------------+
Figure 1. Label Contention
In this example, PXC 1 assigns an Upstream Label using BCId=2 (BCId=7
on PXC 2) and a Suggested Label using BCId=1 (BCId=6 on PXC 2).
Simultaneously, PXC 2 assigns an Upstream Label using BCId=6 (BCId=1
on PXC 1) and a Suggested Label using BCId=7 (BCId=2 on PXC 1).
+------------+ +------------+
+ PXC 1 + + PXC 2 +
+ + UL2 + +
+ 1 +------------------------>+ 6 +
+ + UL1 + +
+ 2 +<------------------------+ 7 +
+ + + +
+ + L1 + +
+ 3 +------------------------>+ 8 +
+ + L2 + +
+ 4 +<------------------------+ 9 +
+------------+ +------------+
Figure 2. Label Contention Resolution without resource restrictions
Berger Standards Track PAGE 19
RFC 3471 GMPLS Signaling Functional Description
In this example, there is no restriction on the labels that can be
used by the bidirectional connection and there is no contention.
+------------+ +------------+
+ PXC 1 + + PXC 2 +
+ + UL2 + +
+ 1 +------------------------>+ 6 +
+ + L2 + +
+ 2 +<------------------------+ 7 +
+ + + +
+ + L1 + +
+ 3 +------------------------>+ 8 +
+ + UL1 + +
+ 4 +<------------------------+ 9 +
+------------+ +------------+
Figure 3. Label Contention Resolution with resource restrictions
In this example, labels 1,2 and 3,4 on PXC 1 (labels 6,7 and 8,9 on
PXC 2, respectively) must be used by the same bidirectional
connection. Since PXC 2 has a higher node ID, it wins the contention
and PXC 1 must use a different set of labels.
5. Notification on Label Error
There are cases in traditional MPLS and in GMPLS that result in an
error message containing an "Unacceptable label value" indication,
see [RFC 3209], [RFC 3472] and [RFC 3473]. When these cases occur, it
can be useful for the node generating the error message to indicate
which labels would be acceptable. To cover this case, GMPLS
introduces the ability to convey such information via the "Acceptable
Label Set". An Acceptable Label Set is carried in appropriate
protocol specific error messages, see [RFC 3472] and [RFC 3473].
The format of an Acceptable Label Set is identical to a Label Set,
see section 3.5.1.
6. Explicit Label Control
In traditional MPLS, the interfaces used by an LSP may be controlled
via an explicit route, i.e., ERO or ER-Hop. This enables the
inclusion of a particular node/interface, and the termination of an
LSP on a particular outgoing interface of the egress LSR. Where the
interface may be numbered or unnumbered, see [MPLS-UNNUM].
There are cases where the existing explicit route semantics do not
provide enough information to control the LSP to the degree desired.
This occurs in the case when the LSP initiator wishes to select a
Berger Standards Track PAGE 20
RFC 3471 GMPLS Signaling Functional Description
label used on a link. Specifically, the problem is that ERO and ER-
Hop do not support explicit label sub-objects. An example case where
such a mechanism is desirable is where there are two LSPs to be
"spliced" together, i.e., where the tail of the first LSP would be
"spliced" into the head of the second LSP. This last case is more
likely to be used in the non-PSC classes of links.
To cover this case, the Label ERO subobject / ER Hop is introduced.
6.1. Required Information
The Label Explicit and Record Routes contains:
L: 1 bit
This bit must be set to 0.
U: 1 bit
This bit indicates the direction of the label. It is 0 for the
downstream label. It is set to 1 for the upstream label and is
only used on bidirectional LSPs.
Label: Variable
This field identifies the label to be used. The format of this
field is identical to the one used by the Label field in
Generalized Label, see Section 3.2.1.
Placement and ordering of these parameters are signaling protocol
specific.
7. Protection Information
Protection Information is carried in a new object/TLV. It is used to
indicate link related protection attributes of a requested LSP. The
use of Protection Information for a particular LSP is optional.
Protection Information currently indicates the link protection type
desired for the LSP. If a particular protection type, i.e., 1+1, or
1:N, is requested, then a connection request is processed only if the
desired protection type can be honored. Note that the protection
capabilities of a link may be advertised in routing, see [GMPLS-RTG].
Path computation algorithms may take this information into account
when computing paths for setting up LSPs.
Protection Information also indicates if the LSP is a primary or
secondary LSP. A secondary LSP is a backup to a primary LSP. The
resources of a secondary LSP are not used until the primary LSP
Berger Standards Track PAGE 21
RFC 3471 GMPLS Signaling Functional Description
fails. The resources allocated for a secondary LSP MAY be used by
other LSPs until the primary LSP fails over to the secondary LSP. At
that point, any LSP that is using the resources for the secondary LSP
MUST be preempted.
7.1. Required Information
The following information is carried in Protection Information:
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| Reserved | Link Flags|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Secondary (S): 1 bit
When set, indicates that the requested LSP is a secondary LSP.
Reserved: 25 bits
This field is reserved. It MUST be set to zero on transmission
and MUST be ignored on receipt. These bits SHOULD be pass
through unmodified by transit nodes.
Link Flags: 6 bits
Indicates desired link protection type. As previously
mentioned, protection capabilities of a link may be advertised
in routing. A value of 0 implies that any, including no, link
protection may be used. More than one bit may be set to
indicate when multiple protection types are acceptable. When
multiple bits are set and multiple protection types are
available, the choice of protection type is a local (policy)
decision.
The following flags are defined:
0x20 Enhanced
Indicates that a protection scheme that is more reliable than
Dedicated 1+1 should be used, e.g., 4 fiber BLSR/MS-SPRING.
Berger Standards Track PAGE 22
RFC 3471 GMPLS Signaling Functional Description
0x10 Dedicated 1+1
Indicates that a dedicated link layer protection scheme,
i.e., 1+1 protection, should be used to support the LSP.
0x08 Dedicated 1:1
Indicates that a dedicated link layer protection scheme,
i.e., 1:1 protection, should be used to support the LSP.
0x04 Shared
Indicates that a shared link layer protection scheme, such
as 1:N protection, should be used to support the LSP.
0x02 Unprotected
Indicates that the LSP should not use any link layer
protection.
0x01 Extra Traffic
Indicates that the LSP should use links that are protecting
other (primary) traffic. Such LSPs may be preempted when
the links carrying the (primary) traffic being protected
fail.
8. Administrative Status Information
Administrative Status Information is carried in a new object/TLV.
Administrative Status Information is currently used in two ways. In
the first, the information indicates administrative state with
respect to a particular LSP. In this usage, Administrative Status
Information indicates the state of the LSP. State indications
include "up" or "down", if it is in a "testing" mode, and if deletion
is in progress. The actions taken by a node based on a state local
decision. An example action that may be taken is to inhibit alarm
reporting when an LSP is in "down" or "testing" states, or to report
alarms associated with the connection at a priority equal to or less
than "Non service affecting".
In the second usage of Administrative Status Information, the
information indicates a request to set an LSP's administrative state.
This information is always relayed to the ingress node which acts on
the request.
Berger Standards Track PAGE 23
RFC 3471 GMPLS Signaling Functional Description
The different usages are distinguished in a protocol specific
fashion. See [RFC 3473] and [RFC 3472] for details. The use of
Administrative Status Information for a particular LSP is optional.
8.1. Required Information
The following information is carried in Administrative Status
Information:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|R| Reserved |T|A|D|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Reflect (R): 1 bit
When set, indicates that the edge node SHOULD reflect the
object/TLV back in the appropriate message. This bit MUST NOT
be set in state change request, i.e., Notify, messages.
Reserved: 28 bits
This field is reserved. It MUST be set to zero on transmission
and MUST be ignored on receipt. These bits SHOULD be pass
through unmodified by transit nodes.
Testing (T): 1 bit
When set, indicates that the local actions related to the
"testing" mode should be taken.
Administratively down (A): 1 bit
When set, indicates that the local actions related to the
"administratively down" state should be taken.
Deletion in progress (D): 1 bit
When set, indicates that that the local actions related to LSP
teardown should be taken. Edge nodes may use this flag to
control connection teardown.
Berger Standards Track PAGE 24
RFC 3471 GMPLS Signaling Functional Description
9. Control Channel Separation
The concept of a control channel being different than a data channel
being signaled was introduced to MPLS in connection with link
bundling, see [MPLS-BUNDLE]. In GMPLS, the separation of control and
data channel may be due to any number of factors. (Including
bundling and other cases such as data channels that cannot carry in-
band control information.) This section will cover the two critical
related issues: the identification of data channels in signaling and
handling of control channel failures that don't impact data channels.
9.1. Interface Identification
In traditional MPLS there is an implicit one-to-one association of a
control channel to a data channel. When such an association is
present, no additional or special information is required to
associate a particular LSP setup transaction with a particular data
channel. (It is implicit in the control channel over which the
signaling messages are sent.)
In cases where there is not an explicit one-to-one association of
control channels to data channels it is necessary to convey
additional information in signaling to identify the particular data
channel being controlled. GMPLS supports explicit data channel
identification by providing interface identification information.
GMPLS allows the use of a number of interface identification schemes
including IPv4 or IPv6 addresses, interface indexes (see [MPLS-
UNNUM]) and component interfaces (established via configuration or a
protocol such as [LMP]). In all cases the choice of the data
interface is indicated by the upstream node using addresses and
identifiers used by the upstream node.
9.1.1. Required Information
The following information is carried in Interface_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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ TLVs ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Berger Standards Track PAGE 25
RFC 3471 GMPLS Signaling Functional Description
Where each TLV 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Value ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Length: 16 bits
Indicates the total length of the TLV, i.e., 4 + the length of
the value field in octets. A value field whose length is not a
multiple of four MUST be zero-padded so that the TLV is four-
octet aligned.
Type: 16 bits
Indicates type of interface being identified. Defined values
are:
Type Length Format Description
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1 8 IPv4 Addr. IPv4
2 20 IPv6 Addr. IPv6
3 12 See below IF_INDEX (Interface Index)
4 12 See below COMPONENT_IF_DOWNSTREAM (Component interface)
5 12 See below COMPONENT_IF_UPSTREAM (Component interface)
For types 3, 4 and 5 the Value field has the 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IP Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
IP Address: 32 bits
The IP address field may carry either an IP address of a link
or an IP address associated with the router, where associated
address is the value carried in a router address TLV of
routing.
Berger Standards Track PAGE 26
RFC 3471 GMPLS Signaling Functional Description
Interface ID: 32 bits
For type 3 usage, the Interface ID carries an interface
identifier.
For types 4 and 5, the Interface ID indicates a bundled
component link. The special value 0xFFFFFFFF can be used to
indicate the same label is to be valid across all component
links.
9.2. Fault Handling
There are two new faults that must be handled when the control
channel is independent of the data channel. In the first, there is a
link or other type of failure that limits the ability of neighboring
nodes to pass control messages. In this situation, neighboring nodes
are unable to exchange control messages for a period of time. Once
communication is restored the underlying signaling protocol must
indicate that the nodes have maintained their state through the
failure. The signaling protocol must also ensure that any state
changes that were instantiated during the failure are synchronized
between the nodes.
In the second, a node's control plane fails and then restarts and
losses most of its state information. In this case, both upstream
and downstream nodes must synchronize their state information with
the restarted node. In order for any resynchronization to occur the
node undergoing the restart will need to preserve some information,
such as its mappings of incoming to outgoing labels.
Both cases are addressed in protocol specific fashions, see [RFC 3473]
and [RFC 3472].
Note that these cases only apply when there are mechanisms to detect
data channel failures independent of control channel failures.
10. Acknowledgments
This document is the work of numerous authors and consists of a
composition of a number of previous documents in this area.
Valuable comments and input were received from a number of people,
including Igor Bryskin, Adrian Farrel, Ben Mack-Crane, Dimitri
Papadimitriou, Fong Liaw and Juergen Heiles. Some sections of this
document are based on text proposed by Fong Liaw.
Berger Standards Track PAGE 27
RFC 3471 GMPLS Signaling Functional Description
11. Security Considerations
This document introduce no new security considerations to either
[RFC 3212] or [RFC 3209]. The security considerations mentioned in
[RFC 3212] or [RFC 3209] apply to the respective protocol specific
forms of GMPLS, see [RFC 3473] and [RFC 3472].
12. IANA Considerations
The IANA will administer assignment of new values for namespaces
defined in this document. This section uses the terminology of BCP
26 "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs"
[BCP26].
This document defines the following namespaces:
o LSP Encoding Type: 8 bits
o Switching Type: 8 bits
o Generalized PID (G-PID): 16 bits
o Action: 8 bits
o Interface_ID Type: 16 bits
All future assignments should be allocated through IETF Consensus
action or documented in a Specification.
LSP Encoding Type - valid value range is 1-255. This document
defines values 1-11.
Switching Type - valid value range is 1-255. This document defines
values 1-4, 100, 150 and 200.
Generalized PID (G-PID) - valid value range is 0-1500. This document
defines values 0-46.
Action - valid value range is 0-255. This document defines values
0-3.
Interface_ID Type - valid value range is 1-65535. This document
defines values 1-5.
Berger Standards Track PAGE 28
RFC 3471 GMPLS Signaling Functional Description
13. Intellectual Property Considerations
This section is taken from Section 10.4 of [RFC 2026].
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 BCP-11. 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.
14. References
14.1. Normative References
[RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels," BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC 3036] Andersson, L., Doolan, P., Feldman, N., Fredette, A.
and B. Thomas, "LDP Specification", RFC 3036,
January 2001.
[RFC 3209] 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.
[RFC 3212] Jamoussi, B., Andersson, L., Callon, R., Dantu, R.,
Wu, L., Doolan, P., Worster, T., Feldman, N.,
Fredette, A., Girish, M., Gray, E., Heinanen, J.,
Kilty, T. and A. Malis, "Constraint-Based LSP Setup
using LDP", RFC 3212, January 2002.
Berger Standards Track PAGE 29
RFC 3471 GMPLS Signaling Functional Description
[RFC 3472] Ashwood-Smith, P. and L. Berger, Editors,
"Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Signaling - Constraint-based Routed Label
Distribution Protocol (CR-LDP) Extensions", RFC
3472, January 2003.
[RFC 3473] Berger, L., Editor "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling - Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions",
RFC 3473, January 2003.
14.2. Informative References
[GMPLS-RTG] Kompella, K., et al., "Routing Extensions in Support
of Generalized MPLS", Work in Progress.
[GMPLS-SONET] Ashwood-Smith, P., et al., "GMPLS - SONET / SDH
Specifics", Work in Progress.
[LMP] Lang, et al., "Link Management Protocol", Work in
Progress.
[MPLS-BUNDLE] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y. and L. Berger, "Link
Bundling in MPLS Traffic Engineering", Work in
Progress.
[MPLS-HIERARCHY] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "LSP Hierarchy with
MPLS TE", Work in Progress.
[RFC 2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process --
Revision 3," BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC 2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP
26, RFC 2434, October 1998.
[RFC 3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A. and R. Callon,
"Multiprotocol label switching Architecture", RFC
3031, January 2001.
Berger Standards Track PAGE 30
RFC 3471 GMPLS Signaling Functional Description
15. Contributors
Peter Ashwood-Smith
Nortel Networks Corp.
P.O. Box 3511 Station C,
Ottawa, ON K1Y 4H7
Canada
Phone: +1 613 763 4534
EMail: petera@nortelnetworks.com
Ayan Banerjee
Calient Networks
5853 Rue Ferrari
San Jose, CA 95138
Phone: +1 408 972-3645
EMail: abanerjee@calient.net
Lou Berger
Movaz Networks, Inc.
7926 Jones Branch Drive
Suite 615
McLean VA, 22102
Phone: +1 703 847-1801
EMail: lberger@movaz.com
Greg Bernstein
EMail: gregb@grotto-networking.com
John Drake
Calient Networks
5853 Rue Ferrari
San Jose, CA 95138
Phone: +1 408 972 3720
EMail: jdrake@calient.net
Berger Standards Track PAGE 31
RFC 3471 GMPLS Signaling Functional Description
Yanhe Fan
Axiowave Networks, Inc.
200 Nickerson Road
Marlborough, MA 01752
Phone: + 1 774 348 4627
EMail: yfan@axiowave.com
Kireeti Kompella
Juniper Networks, Inc.
1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
EMail: kireeti@juniper.net
Jonathan P. Lang
EMail: jplang@ieee.org
Eric Mannie
Independent Consultant
2 Avenue de la Folle Chanson
1050 Brussels
Belgium
EMail: eric_mannie@hotmail.com
Bala Rajagopalan
Tellium, Inc.
2 Crescent Place
P.O. Box 901
Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901
Phone: +1 732 923 4237
Fax: +1 732 923 9804
EMail: braja@tellium.com
Yakov Rekhter
Juniper Networks, Inc.
EMail: yakov@juniper.net
Berger Standards Track PAGE 32
RFC 3471 GMPLS Signaling Functional Description
Debanjan Saha
EMail: debanjan@acm.org
Vishal Sharma
Metanoia, Inc.
1600 Villa Street, Unit 352
Mountain View, CA 94041-1174
Phone: +1 650-386-6723
EMail: v.sharma@ieee.org
George Swallow
Cisco Systems, Inc.
250 Apollo Drive
Chelmsford, MA 01824
Phone: +1 978 244 8143
EMail: swallow@cisco.com
Z. Bo Tang
EMail: botang01@yahoo.com
16. Editor's Address
Lou Berger
Movaz Networks, Inc.
7926 Jones Branch Drive
Suite 615
McLean VA, 22102
Phone: +1 703 847-1801
EMail: lberger@movaz.com
Berger Standards Track PAGE 33
RFC 3471 GMPLS Signaling Functional Description
17. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright © 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.
Berger Standards Track PAGE 34
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description
RFC TOTAL SIZE: 72105 bytes
PUBLICATION DATE: Wednesday, February 12th, 2003
LEGAL RIGHTS: The IETF Trust (see BCP 78)
|
