|
|
|
|
|
|
IETF RFC 4394
A Transport Network View of the Link Management Protocol (LMP)
Last modified on Friday, February 10th, 2006
 Permanent link to RFC 4394
 Search GitHub Wiki for RFC 4394
 Show other RFCs mentioning RFC 4394
Network Working Group D. Fedyk
Request for Comments: 4394 O. Aboul-Magd
Category: Informational Nortel Networks
D. Brungard
AT&T
J. Lang
Sonos, Inc.
D. Papadimitriou
Alcatel
February 2006
A Transport Network View of the Link Management Protocol (LMP)
 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 © The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
The Link Management Protocol (LMP) has been developed as part of the
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) protocol suite to manage Traffic Engineering
(TE) resources and links. The GMPLS control plane (routing and
signaling) uses TE links for establishing Label Switched Paths
(LSPs). This memo describes the relationship of the LMP procedures
to 'discovery' as defined in the International Telecommunication
Union (ITU-T), and ongoing ITU-T work. This document provides an
overview of LMP in the context of the ITU-T Automatically Switched
Optical Networks (ASON) and transport network terminology and relates
it to the ITU-T discovery work to promote a common understanding for
progressing the work of IETF and ITU-T.
Fedyk, et al. Informational PAGE 1 
RFC 4394 Transport Network View of LMP February 2006
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. ASON Terminology and Abbreviations Related to Discovery .........3
2.1. Terminology ................................................3
2.2. Abbreviations ..............................................4
3. Transport Network Architecture ..................................5
3.1. G.8080 Discovery Framework .................................7
4. Discovery Technologies ..........................................9
4.1. Generalized Automatic Discovery Techniques G.7714 ..........9
4.2. LMP and G.8080 Terminology Mapping .........................9
4.2.1. TE Link Definition and Scope .......................12
4.3. LMP and G.8080 Discovery Relationship .....................13
4.4. Comparing LMP and G.8080 ..................................14
5. Security Considerations ........................................15
6. Informative References .........................................15
7. Acknowledgements ...............................................16
1. Introduction
The GMPLS control plane consists of several building blocks as
described in [RFC 3945]. The building blocks include signaling,
routing, and link management for establishing LSPs. For scalability
purposes, multiple physical resources can be combined to form a
single TE link for the purposes of path computation and GMPLS control
plane signaling.
As manual provisioning and management of these links are impractical
in large networks, LMP was specified to manage TE links. Two
mandatory management capabilities of LMP are control channel
management and TE link property correlation. Additional optional
capabilities include verifying physical connectivity and fault
management. [LMP] defines the messages and procedures for GMPLS TE
link management. [LMP-TEST] defines SONET/SDH-specific messages and
procedures for link verification.
ITU-T Recommendation G.8080 Amendment 1 [G.8080] defines control
plane discovery as two separate processes; one process occurs within
the transport plane space and the other process occurs within the
control plane space.
The ITU-T has developed Recommendation G.7714, "Generalized automatic
discovery techniques" [G.7714], defining the functional processes and
information exchange related to transport plane discovery aspects,
i.e., layer adjacency discovery and physical media adjacency
discovery. Specific methods and protocols are not defined in
Recommendation G.7714. ITU-T Recommendation G.7714.1, "Protocol for
automatic discovery in SDH and OTN networks" [G.7714.1], defines a
Fedyk, et al. Informational PAGE 2
RFC 4394 Transport Network View of LMP February 2006
protocol and procedure for transport plane layer adjacency discovery
(e.g., discovering the transport plane layer endpoint relationships
and verifying their connectivity). The ITU-T is currently working to
extend discovery to control plane aspects providing detail on a
discovery framework architecture in G.8080 and a new Recommendation
on "Control plane initial establishment, reconfiguration".
2. ASON Terminology and Abbreviations Related to Discovery
ITU-T Recommendation G.8080 Amendment 1 [G.8080] and ITU-T
Recommendation G.7714 [G.7714] provide definitions and mechanisms
related to transport plane discovery.
Note that in the context of this work, "Transport" relates to the
data plane (sometimes called the transport plane or the user plane)
and does not refer to the transport layer (layer 4) of the OSI seven
layer model, nor to the concept of transport intended by protocols
such as the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP).
Special care must be taken with the acronym "TCP", which within the
context of the rest of this document means "Termination Connection
Point" and does not indicate the Transmission Control Protocol.
2.1. Terminology
The reader is assumed to be familiar with the terminology in [LMP]
and [LMP-TEST]. The following ITU-T terminology/abbreviations are
used in this document:
Connection Point (CP): A "reference point" that consists of a pair of
co-located "unidirectional connection points" and therefore
represents the binding of two paired bidirectional "connections".
Connection Termination Point (CTP): A connection termination point
represents the state of a CP [M.3100].
Characteristic Information: Signal with a specific format, which is
transferred on "network connections". The specific formats will be
defined in the technology-specific recommendations. For trails, the
Characteristic Information is the payload plus the overhead. The
information transferred is characteristic of the layer network.
Link: A subset of ports at the edge of a subnetwork or access group
that are associated with a corresponding subset of ports at the edge
of another subnetwork or access group.
Link Connection (LC): A transport entity that transfers information
between ports across a link.
Fedyk, et al. Informational PAGE 3
RFC 4394 Transport Network View of LMP February 2006
Network Connection (NC): A concatenation of link and subnetwork
connections.
Subnetwork: A set of ports that are available for the purpose of
routing 'characteristic information'.
Subnetwork Connection (SNC): A flexible connection that is set up and
released using management or control plane procedures.
Subnetwork Point (SNP): SNP is an abstraction that represents an
actual or potential underlying connection point (CP) or termination
connection point (TCP) for the purpose of control plane
representation.
Subnetwork Point Pool (SNPP): A set of SNPs that are grouped together
for the purpose of routing.
Termination Connection Point (TCP): A reference point that represents
the output of a Trail Termination source function or the input to a
Trail Termination sink function. A network connection represents a
transport entity between TCPs.
Trail Termination source/sink function: A "transport processing
function" that accepts the characteristic information of the layer
network at its input, removes the information related to "trail"
monitoring, and presents the remaining information at its output.
Unidirectional Connection: A "transport entity" that transfers
information transparently from input to output.
Unidirectional Connection Point: A "reference point" that represents
the binding of the output of a "unidirectional connection" to the
input of another "unidirectional connection".
2.2. Abbreviations
LMP: Link Management Protocol
OTN: Optical Transport Network
PDH: Plesiosynchronous Digital Hierarchy
SDH: Synchronous Digital Hierarchy
SONET: Synchronous Optical Network
Fedyk, et al. Informational PAGE 4
RFC 4394 Transport Network View of LMP February 2006
3. Transport Network Architecture
A generic functional architecture for transport networks is defined
in International Telecommunication Union (ITU-T) Recommendation
[G.805]. This recommendation describes the functional architecture
of transport networks in a technology-independent way. This
architecture forms the basis for a set of technology-specific
architectural recommendations for transport networks (e.g., SDH, PDH,
OTN, etc.).
The architecture defined in G.805 is designed using a layered model
with a client-server relationship between layers. The architecture
is recursive in nature; a network layer is both a server to the
client layer above it and a client to the server layer below it.
There are two basic building blocks defined in G.805: "subnetworks"
and "links". A subnetwork is defined as a set of ports that are
available for the purpose of routing "characteristic information". A
link consists of a subset of ports at the edge of one subnetwork (or
"access group") and is associated with a corresponding subset of
ports at the edge of another subnetwork or access group.
Two types of connections are defined in G.805: link connection (LC)
and subnetwork connection (SNC). A link connection is a fixed and
inflexible connection, while a subnetwork connection is flexible and
is set up and released using management or control plane procedures.
A network connection is defined as a concatenation of subnetwork and
link connections. Figure 1 illustrates link and subnetwork
connections.
(++++++++) (++++++++)
( SNC ) LC ( SNC )
(o)--------(o)----------(o)--------(o)
( ) CP CP ( )
(++++++++) (++++++++)
subnetwork subnetwork
Figure 1: Subnetwork and Link Connections
G.805 defines a set of reference points for the purpose of
identification in both the management and the control planes. These
identifiers are NOT required to be the same. A link connection or a
subnetwork connection is delimited by connection points (CPs). A
network connection is delimited by a termination connection point
(TCP). A link connection in the client layer is represented by a
pair of adaptation functions and a trail in the server layer network.
A trail represents the transfer of monitored adapted characteristics
information of the client layer network between access points (APs).
Fedyk, et al. Informational PAGE 5
RFC 4394 Transport Network View of LMP February 2006
A trail is delimited by two access points, one at each end of the
trail. Figure 2 shows a network connection and its relationship with
link and subnetwork connections. Figure 2 also shows the CP and TCP
reference points.
|<-------Network Connection---------->|
| |
| (++++++++) (++++++++) |
|( SNC ) LC ( SNC ) |
(o)--------(o)----------(o)--------(o)|
TCP( )| CP CP |( )TCP
(++++++++) | | (++++++++)
| |
| Trail |
|<-------->|
| |
--- ---
\ / \ /
- -
AP 0 0 AP
| |
(oo)------(oo)
Figure 2: Network Connection with Link and Subnetwork Connections
For management plane purposes, the G.805 reference points are
represented by a set of management objects described in ITU-T
Recommendation M.3100 [M.3100]. Connection termination points (CTPs)
and trail termination points (TTPs) are the management plane objects
for CP and TCP, respectively.
In the same way as in M.3100, the transport resources in G.805 are
identified for the purposes of the control plane by entities suitable
for connection control. G.8080 introduces the reference architecture
for the control plane of the Automatically Switched Optical Networks
(ASONs). G.8080 introduces a set of reference points relevant to the
ASON control plane and their relationship to the corresponding points
in the transport plane. A subnetwork point (SNP) is an abstraction
that represents an actual or potential underlying CP or an actual or
potential TCP. A set of SNPs that are grouped together for the
purpose of routing is called SNP pool (SNPP). Similar to LC and SNC,
the SNP-SNP relationship may be static and inflexible (this is
referred to as an SNP link connection), or it can be dynamic and
flexible (this is referred to as an SNP subnetwork connection).
Fedyk, et al. Informational PAGE 6
RFC 4394 Transport Network View of LMP February 2006
3.1. G.8080 Discovery Framework
G.8080 provides a reference control plane architecture based on the
descriptive use of functional components representing abstract
entities and abstract component interfaces. The description is
generic, and no particular physical partitioning of functions is
implied. The input/output information flows associated with the
functional components serve for defining the functions of the
components and are considered to be conceptual, not physical.
Components can be combined in different ways, and the description is
not intended to limit implementations. Control plane discovery is
described in G.8080 by using three components: Discovery Agent (DA),
Termination and Adaptation Performer (TAP), and Link Resource Manager
(LRM).
The objective of the discovery framework in G.8080 is to establish
the relationship between CP-CP link connections (transport plane) and
SNP-SNP link connections (control plane). The fundamental
characteristics of G.8080 discovery framework is the functional
separation between the control and the transport plane discovery
processes and name spaces. From G.8080: "This separation allows
control plane names to be completely separate from transport plane
names, and completely independent of the method used to populate the
DAs with those transport names. In order to assign an SNP-SNP link
connection to an SNPP link, it is only necessary for the transport
name for the link connection to exist". Thus, it is possible to
assign link connections to the control plane without the link
connection being physically connected.
Discovery encompasses two separate processes: (1) transport plane
discovery, i.e., CP-to-CP and TCP-to-TCP connectivity; and (2)
control plane discovery, i.e., SNP-to-SNP and SNPP links.
G.8080 Amendment 1 defines the Discovery Agent (DA) as the entity
responsible for discovery in the transport plane. The DA operates in
the transport name space only and in cooperation with the Termination
and Adaptation Performer (TAP), provides the separation between that
space and the control plane names. A local DA is only aware of the
CPs and TCPs that are assigned to it. The DA holds the CP-CP link
connection in the transport plane to enable SNP-SNP link connections
to be bound to them at a later time by the TAP. The CP-CP
relationship may be discovered (e.g., per G.7714.1) or provided by a
management system.
Control plane discovery takes place entirely within the control plane
name space (SNPs). The Link Resource Manager (LRM) holds the SNP-SNP
binding information necessary for the control plane name of the link
connection, while the termination adaptation performer (TAP) holds
Fedyk, et al. Informational PAGE 7
RFC 4394 Transport Network View of LMP February 2006
the relation between the control plane name (SNP) and the transport
plane name (CP) of the resource. Figure 3 shows the relationship and
the different entities for transport and control discoveries.
LRM LRM
+-----+ holds SNP-SNP Relation +-----+
| |-------------------------| |
+-----+ +-----+
| |
v v
+-----+ +-----+
| o | SNPs in SNPP | o |
| | | |
| o | | o |
| | | |
| o | | o |
+-----+ +-----+
| |
v v Control Plane
+-----+ +-----+ Discovery
| | Termination and | |
---|-----|-------------------------|-----|---------
| | Adaptation Performer | |
+-----+ (TAP) +-----+ Transport Plane
| \ / | Discovery
| \ / |
| +-----+ +-----+ |
| | DA | | DA | |
| | | | | |
| +-----+ +-----+ |
| / \ |
V/ \V
O CP (Transport Name) O CP (Transport Name)
Figure 3: Discovery in the Control and the Transport Planes
Fedyk, et al. Informational PAGE 8
RFC 4394 Transport Network View of LMP February 2006
4. Discovery Technologies
4.1. Generalized Automatic Discovery Techniques G.7714
Generalized automatic discovery techniques are described in G.7714 to
aid resource management and routing for G.8080. The term routing
here is described in the transport context of routing connections in
an optical network as opposed to the routing context typically
associated in packet networks.
G.7714 is concerned with two types of discovery:
- Layer adjacency discovery
- Physical media adjacency discovery
Layer adjacency discovery can be used to correlate physical
connections with management configured attributes. Among other
features this capability allows reduction in configuration and the
detection of mis-wired equipment.
Physical media adjacency discovery is a process that allows the
physical testing of the media for the purpose of inventory capacity
and verifying the port characteristics of physical media adjacent
networks.
G.7714 does not specify specific protocols but rather the type of
techniques that can be used. G.7714.1 specifies a protocol for layer
adjacency with respect to SDH and OTN networks for layer adjacency
discovery. A GMPLS method for layer discovery using elements of LMP
is included in this set of procedures.
An important point about the G.7714 specification is that it
specifies a discovery mechanism for optical networks but not
necessarily how the information will be used. It is intended that
the transport management plane or a transport control plane may
subsequently make use of the discovered information.
4.2. LMP and G.8080 Terminology Mapping
GMPLS is a set of IP-based protocols, including LMP, providing a
control plane for multiple data plane technologies, including
optical/transport networks and their resources (i.e., wavelengths,
timeslots, etc.) and without assuming any restriction on the control
plane architecture (see [RFC 3945]). On the other hand, G.8080
defines a control plane reference architecture for optical/transport
networks without any restriction on the control plane implementation.
Being developed in separate standards forums, and with different
scopes, they use different terms and definitions.
Fedyk, et al. Informational PAGE 9
RFC 4394 Transport Network View of LMP February 2006
Terminology mapping between LMP and ASON (G.805/G.8080) is an
important step towards the understanding of the two architectures and
allows for potential cooperation in areas where cooperation is
possible. To facilitate this mapping, we differentiate between the
two types of data links in LMP. According to LMP, a data link may be
considered by each node that it terminates on as either a 'port' or a
'component link'. The LMP notions of port and component link are
supported by the G.805/G.8080 architecture. G.8080's variable
adaptation function is broadly equivalent to LMP's component link,
i.e., a single server-layer trail dynamically supporting different
multiplexing structures. Note that when the data plane delivers its
own addressing space, LMP Interface_IDs and Data Links IDs are used
as handles by the control plane to the actual CP Name and CP-to-CP
Name, respectively.
The terminology mapping is summarized in the following table: Note
that the table maps ASON terms to GMPLS terms that refer to
equivalent objects, but in many cases there is not a one-to-one
mapping. Additional information beyond discovery terminology can be
found in [LEXICO].
Fedyk, et al. Informational PAGE 10
RFC 4394 Transport Network View of LMP February 2006
+----------------+--------------------+-------------------+
| ASON Terms | GMPLS/LMP Terms | GMPLS/LMP Terms |
| | Port | Component Link |
+----------------+--------------------+-------------------+
| CP | TE Resource; | TE Resource; |
| | Interface (Port) | Interface. |
| | |(Comp. link) |
+----------------+--------------------+-------------------+
| CP Name | Interface ID | Interface ID(s) |
| | no further sub- | resources (such as|
| | division for(label)| timeslots, etc.) |
| | resource allocation| on this interface |
| | | are identified by |
| | | set of labels |
+----------------+--------------------+-------------------+
| CP-to-CP Link | Data Link | Data Link |
+----------------+--------------------+-------------------+
| CP-to-CP Name | Data Link ID | Data Link ID |
+----------------+--------------------+-------------------+
| SNP | TE Resource | TE Resource |
+----------------+--------------------+-------------------+
| SNP Name | Link ID | Link ID |
+----------------+--------------------+-------------------+
| SNP LC | TE Link | TE Link |
+----------------+--------------------+-------------------+
| SNP LC Name | TE Link ID | TE Link ID |
+----------------+--------------------+-------------------+
| SNPP | TE Link End | TE Link End |
| | (Port) | (Comp. Link) |
+----------------+--------------------+-------------------+
| SNPP Name | Link ID | Link ID |
+----------------+--------------------+-------------------+
| SNPP Link | TE Link | TE Link |
+----------------+--------------------+-------------------+
| SNPP Link Name | TE Link ID | TE Link ID |
+----------------+--------------------+-------------------+
where composite identifiers are:
- Data Link ID: <Local Interface ID; Remote Interface ID>
- TE Link ID: <Local Link ID; Remote Link ID>
Composite Identifiers are defined in the RFC 4204 [LMP]. LMP
discovers data links and identifies them by the pair of local and
remote interface IDs. TE links are composed of data links or
component TE links. TE links are similarly identified by pair of
local and remote link ID.
Fedyk, et al. Informational PAGE 11
RFC 4394 Transport Network View of LMP February 2006
4.2.1. TE Link Definition and Scope
In the table, TE link/resource is equated with the concept of SNP,
SNP LC, SNPP, and SNPP link. The definition of the TE link is broad
in scope, and it is useful to repeat it here. The original
definition appears in [GMPLS-RTG]:
"A TE link is a logical construct that represents a way to group/map
the information about certain physical resources (and their
properties) that interconnects LSRs into the information that is used
by Constrained SPF for GMPLS path computation, and GMPLS signaling".
While this definition is concise, it is probably worth pointing out
some of the implications of the definition.
A component of the TE link may follow different paths between the
pair of LSRs. For example, a TE link comprising multiple STS-3cs,
the individual STS-3cs component links may take identical or
different physical (OC-3 and/or OC-48) paths between LSRs.
The TE link construct is a logical construction encompassing many
layers in networks [RFC 3471]. A TE link can represent either
unallocated potential or allocated actual resources. Further
allocation is represented by bandwidth reservation, and the resources
may be real or, in the case of packets, virtual to allow for
overbooking or other forms of statistical multiplexing schemes.
Since TE links may represent large numbers of parallel resources,
they can be bundled for efficient summarization of resource capacity.
Typically, bundling represents a logical TE link resource at a
particular Interface Switching Capability. Once TE link resources
are allocated, the actual capacity may be represented as LSP
hierarchical (tunneled) TE link capability in another logical TE link
[HIER].
TE links also incorporate the notion of a Forwarding Adjacency (FA)
and Interface Switching Capability [RFC 3945]. The FA allows
transport resources to be represented as TE links. The Interface
Switching Capability specifies the type of transport capability such
as Packet Switch Capable (PSC), Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC), Time-
Division Multiplex (TDM), Lambda Switch Capable (LSC), and Fiber-
Switch Capable (FSC).
A TE link between GMPLS-controlled optical nodes may consist of a
bundled TE link, which itself consists of a mix of point-to-point
component links [BUNDLE]. A TE link is identified by the tuple (link
Identifier (32-bit number), Component link Identifier (32-bit
number), and generalized label (media specific)).
Fedyk, et al. Informational PAGE 12
RFC 4394 Transport Network View of LMP February 2006
4.3. LMP and G.8080 Discovery Relationship
LMP currently consists of four primary procedures, of which the first
two are mandatory and the last two are optional:
1. Control channel management
2. Link property correlation
3. Link verification
4. Fault management
LMP procedures that are relevant to G.8080 control plane discovery
are control channel management, link property correlation, and link
verification. Key to understanding G.8080 discovery aspects in
relation to [LMP] is that LMP procedures are specific for an IP-based
control plane abstraction of the transport plane.
LMP control channel management is used to establish and maintain
control channel connectivity between LMP adjacent nodes. In GMPLS,
the control channels between two adjacent nodes are not required to
use the same physical medium as the TE links between those nodes.
The control channels that are used to exchange the GMPLS control
plane information exist independently of the TE links they manage
(i.e., control channels may be in-band or out-of-band, provided the
associated control points terminate the LMP packets). The Link
Management Protocol [LMP] was designed to manage TE links,
independently of the physical medium capabilities of the data links.
Link property correlation is used to aggregate multiple data links
into a single TE link and to synchronize the link properties.
Link verification is used to verify the physical connectivity of the
data links and verify the mapping of the Interface-ID to Link-ID (CP
to SNP). The local-to-remote associations can be obtained using a
priori knowledge or using the link verification procedure.
Fault management is primarily used to suppress alarms and to localize
failures. It is an optional LMP procedure; its use will depend on
the specific technology's capabilities.
[LMP] supports distinct transport and control plane name spaces with
the (out-of-band) TRACE object (see [LMP-TEST]). The LMP TRACE
object allows transport plane names to be associated with interface
identifiers [LMP-TEST].
Aspects of LMP link verification appear similar to G.7714.1
discovery; however, the two procedures are different. G.7714.1
provides discovery of the transport plane layer adjacencies. It
provides a generic procedure to discover the connectivity of two
Fedyk, et al. Informational PAGE 13
RFC 4394 Transport Network View of LMP February 2006
endpoints in the transport plane. On the other hand, the LMP link
verification procedure is a control-plane-driven procedure and
assumes either (1) a priori knowledge of the associated data plane's
local and remote endpoint connectivity and Interface_IDs (e.g., via
management plane or use of G.7714.1), or (2) support of the remote
node for associating the data interface being verified with the
content of the TRACE object (inferred mapping). For SONET/SDH
transport networks, LMP verification uses the SONET/SDH Trail Trace
identifier (see [G.783]).
G.7714.1 supports the use of transport plane discovery independent of
the platform using the capability. Furthermore, G.7714.1 specifies
the use of a Discovery Agent that could be located in an external
system and the need to support the use of text-oriented man-machine
language to provide the interface. Therefore, G.7714.1 limits the
discovery messages to printable characters defined by [T.50] and
requires Base64 encoding for the TCP-ID and DA ID. External name-
servers may be used to resolve the G.7714.1 TCP name, allowing the
TCP to have an IP, Network Service Access Protocol (NSAP), or any
other address format. On the other hand, LMP is based on the use of
an IP-based control plane, and the LMP interface ID uses IPv4, IPv6,
or unnumbered interface IDs.
4.4. Comparing LMP and G.8080
LMP exists to support GMPLS TE resource and TE link discovery. In
section 4.2.1, we elaborated on the definition of the TE link. LMP
enables the aspects of TE links to be discovered and reported to the
control plane, more specifically, the routing plane. G.8080 and
G.7714 are agnostic to the type of control plane and discovery
protocol used. LMP is a valid realization of a control plane
discovery process under a G.8080 model.
G.7714 specifies transport plane discovery with respect to the
transport layer CTPs or TCPs using ASON conventions and naming for
the elements of the ASON control plane and the ASON management plane.
This discovery supports a centralized management model of
configuration as well as a distributed control plane model; in other
words, discovered items can be reported to the management plane or
the control plane. G.7714.1 provides one realization of a transport
plane discovery process.
Today, LMP and G.7714, G7714.1 are defined in different standards
organizations. They have evolved out of different naming schemes and
architectural concepts. Whereas G.7714.1 supports a transport plane
layer adjacency connectivity verification that can be used by a
Fedyk, et al. Informational PAGE 14
RFC 4394 Transport Network View of LMP February 2006
control plane or a management plane, LMP is a control plane procedure
for managing GMPLS TE links (GMPLS's control plane representation of
the transport plane connections).
5. Security Considerations
Since this document is purely descriptive in nature, it does not
introduce any security issues.
G.8080 and G.7714/G.7714.1 provide security as associated with the
Data Communications Network on which they are implemented.
LMP is specified using IP, which provides security mechanisms
associated with the IP network on which it is implemented.
6. Informative References
[LMP] Lang, J., "Link Management Protocol (LMP)", RFC 4204,
October 2005.
[LMP-TEST] Lang, J. and D. Papadimitriou, "Synchronous Optical
Network (SONET)/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH)
Encoding for Link Management Protocol (LMP) Test
Messages", RFC 4207, October 2005.
[RFC 3945] Mannie, E., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004.
[RFC 3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471,
January 2003.
[GMPLS-RTG] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Routing Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005.
[HIER] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths (LSP)
Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206, October
2005.
[BUNDLE] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., and L. Berger, "Link Bundling
in MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4201, October
2005.
Fedyk, et al. Informational PAGE 15
RFC 4394 Transport Network View of LMP February 2006
[LEXICO] Bryskin, I. and A. Farrel, "A Lexicography for the
Interpretation of Generalized Multiprotocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Terminology within The Context of the
ITU-T's Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)
Architecture", Work in Progress, January 2006.
For information on the availability of the ITU-T documents, please
see http://www.itu.int.
[G.783] ITU-T G.783 (2004), Characteristics of synchronous
digital hierarchy (SDH) equipment functional blocks.
[G.805] ITU-T G.805 (2000), Generic functional architecture of
transport networks.
[G.7714] ITU-T G.7714/Y.1705 (2001), Generalized automatic
discovery techniques.
[G.7714.1] ITU-T G.7714.1/Y.1705.1 (2003), Protocol for automatic
discovery in SDH and OTN networks.
[G.8080] ITU-T G.8080/Y.1304 (2001), Architecture for the
automatically switched optical network (ASON).
[M.3100] ITU-T M.3100 (1995), Generic Network Information Model.
[T.50] ITU-T T.50 (1992), International Reference Alphabet.
7. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Astrid Lozano, John Drake, Adrian
Farrel and Stephen Shew for their valuable comments.
The authors would like to thank ITU-T Study Group 15 Question 14 for
their careful review and comments.
Fedyk, et al. Informational PAGE 16
RFC 4394 Transport Network View of LMP February 2006
Authors' Addresses
Don Fedyk
Nortel Networks
600 Technology Park Drive
Billerica, MA, 01821
Phone: +1 978 288-3041
EMail: dwfedyk@nortel.com
Osama Aboul-Magd
Nortel Networks
P.O. Box 3511, Station 'C'
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
K1Y-4H7
Phone: +1 613 763-5827
EMail: osama@nortel.com
Deborah Brungard
AT&T
Rm. D1-3C22
200 S. Laurel Ave.
Middletown, NJ 07748, USA
EMail: dbrungard@att.com
Jonathan P. Lang
Sonos, Inc.
223 E. De La Guerra
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
EMail: jplang@ieee.org
Dimitri Papadimitriou
Alcatel
Francis Wellesplein, 1
B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
Phone: +32 3 240-84-91
EMail: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be
Fedyk, et al. Informational PAGE 17
RFC 4394 Transport Network View of LMP February 2006
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright © The Internet Society (2006).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Fedyk, et al. Informational PAGE 18
A Transport Network View of the Link Management Protocol (LMP)
RFC TOTAL SIZE: 40811 bytes
PUBLICATION DATE: Friday, February 10th, 2006
LEGAL RIGHTS: The IETF Trust (see BCP 78)
|
