|
|
|
|
|
|
IETF RFC 6004
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support for Metro Ethernet Forum and G.8011 Ethernet Service Switching
Last modified on Monday, October 11th, 2010
 Permanent link to RFC 6004
 Search GitHub Wiki for RFC 6004
 Show other RFCs mentioning RFC 6004
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Berger
Request for Comments: 6004 LabN
Category: Standards Track D. Fedyk
ISSN: 2070-1721 Alcatel-Lucent
October 2010
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support for Metro Ethernet Forum
and G.8011 Ethernet Service Switching
 Abstract
This document describes a method for controlling two specific types
of Ethernet switching via Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS). This document supports the types of switching corresponding
to the Ethernet services that have been defined in the context of the
Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) and International Telecommunication Union
(ITU) G.8011. Specifically, switching in support of Ethernet private
line and Ethernet virtual private line services are covered. Support
for MEF- and ITU-defined parameters is also covered.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6004.
Berger & Fedyk Standards Track PAGE 1 
RFC 6004 GMPLS Support for MEF and G.8011 October 2010
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................3
1.1. Overview ...................................................3
1.2. Conventions Used in This Document ..........................4
2. Common Signaling Support ........................................5
2.1. Ethernet Endpoint Identification ...........................5
2.1.1. Endpoint ID TLV .....................................5
2.1.1.1. Procedures .................................6
2.2. Connection Identification ..................................6
2.2.1. Procedures ..........................................6
2.3. Traffic Parameters .........................................7
2.3.1. L2 Control Protocol TLV .............................7
2.4. Bundling and VLAN Identification ...........................9
3. EPL Service .....................................................9
3.1. EPL Service Parameters .....................................9
4. EVPL Service ...................................................10
4.1. EVPL Generalized Label Format .............................10
4.2. Egress VLAN ID Control and VLAN ID Preservation ...........11
4.3. Single Call - Single LSP ..................................11
4.4. Single Call - Multiple LSPs ...............................11
5. IANA Considerations ............................................12
5.1. Endpoint ID Attributes TLV ................................12
5.2. Line LSP Encoding .........................................12
5.3. Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) Switching Type .......12
6. Security Considerations ........................................13
7. References .....................................................13
7.1. Normative References ......................................13
7.2. Informative References ....................................14
Acknowledgments ...................................................14
Berger & Fedyk Standards Track PAGE 2
RFC 6004 GMPLS Support for MEF and G.8011 October 2010
1. Introduction
[MEF6] and [G.8011] provide parallel frameworks for defining network-
oriented characteristics of Ethernet services in transport networks.
The framework discusses general Ethernet connection characteristics,
Ethernet User-Network Interfaces (UNIs) and Ethernet Network-Network
Interfaces (NNIs). Within this framework, [G.8011.1] defines the
Ethernet Private Line (EPL) service and [G.8011.2] defines the
Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) service. [MEF6] covers both
service types. [MEF10.1] defines service parameters and [MEF11]
provides UNI requirements and framework.
[MEF6] and [G.8011] are focused on service interfaces and not the
underlying technology used to support the service. For example,
[G.8011] refers to the defined services being transported over one of
several possible "server layers". This document focuses on the types
of switching that may directly support these services and provides a
method for GMPLS-based control of such switching technologies. This
document defines the GMPLS extensions needed to support such
switching, but does not define the UNI or External NNI (E-NNI)
reference points. See [RFC 6005] for a description of the UNI
reference point. This document makes use of the traffic parameters
defined in [RFC 6003] and the generic extensions defined in [RFC 6002].
1.1. Overview
This document uses a common approach to supporting the switching
corresponding to the Ethernet services defined in [MEF6], [G.8011.1],
and [G.8011.2]. The approach builds on standard GMPLS mechanisms to
deliver the required control capabilities. This document reuses the
GMPLS mechanisms specified in [RFC 3473] and [RFC 4974]. The document
uses the extensions defined in [RFC 6002].
Two types of connectivity between Ethernet endpoints are defined in
[MEF6] and [G.8011]: point-to-point (P2P) and multipoint-to-
multipoint (MP2MP). [MEF6] uses the term Ethernet Line (E-line) to
refer to point-to-point virtual connections, and Ethernet LAN (E-LAN)
to refer to multipoint-to-multipoint virtual connections. [G.8011]
also identifies point-to-multipoint (P2MP) as an area for "further
study". Within the context of GMPLS, support is defined for point-
to-point unidirectional and bidirectional Traffic Engineering Label
Switched Paths (TE LSPs), see [RFC 3473], and unidirectional point-to-
multipoint TE LSPs, see [RFC 4875].
Support for P2P and MP2MP services is defined by [G.8011] and
required by [MEF11]. Note that while [MEF11] and [G.8011] discuss
MP2MP, [G.8011.1] and [G.8011.2] only define support for P2P. There
is a clear correspondence between E-Line/P2P service and GMPLS P2P TE
Berger & Fedyk Standards Track PAGE 3
RFC 6004 GMPLS Support for MEF and G.8011 October 2010
LSPs, and support for such LSPs is included in the scope of this
document. There is no such clear correspondence between E-LAN/MP2MP
service and GMPLS TE LSPs. Although, it is possible to emulate this
service using multiple P2P or P2MP TE LSPs, the definition of support
for MP2MP service is left for future study and is not addressed in
this document.
[MEF11] defines multiple types of control for UNI Ethernet services.
In MEF UNI Type 1, services are configured manually. In MEF UNI Type
2, services may be configured manually or via a link management
interface. In MEF UNI Type 3, services may be established and
managed via a signaling interface. From the MEF perspective, this
document, along with [RFC 6005], is aimed at the network control
needed to support the MEF UNI Type 3 mode of operation.
[G.8011.1], [G.8011.2], and [MEF11], together with [MEF10.1], define
a set of service attributes that are associated with each Ethernet
connection. Some of these attributes are based on the provisioning
of the local physical connection and are not modifiable or selectable
per connection. Other attributes are specific to a particular
connection or must be consistent across the connection. The approach
taken in this document to communicate these attributes is to exclude
the static class of attributes from signaling. This class of
attributes will not be explicitly discussed in this document. The
other class of attributes is communicated via signaling and will be
reviewed in the sections below. The major attributes that will be
supported in signaling include:
- Endpoint identifiers
- Connection identifiers
- Traffic parameters (see [RFC 6003])
- Bundling / VLAN IDs map (EVPL only)
- VLAN ID Preservation (EVPL only)
Common procedures used to support Ethernet LSPs are described in
Section 2 of this document. Procedures related to the signaling of
switching in support of EPL services are described in Section 3.
Procedures related to the signaling of switching in support of EVPL
services are described in Section 4.
1.2. Conventions Used in This Document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC 2119].
Berger & Fedyk Standards Track PAGE 4
RFC 6004 GMPLS Support for MEF and G.8011 October 2010
2. Common Signaling Support
This section describes the common mechanisms for supporting GMPLS
signaled control of LSPs that provide Ethernet connections as defined
in [MEF11], [G.8011.1], and [G.8011.2].
Except as specifically modified in this document, the procedures
related to the processing of RSVP objects are not modified by this
document. The relevant procedures in existing documents, such as
[RFC 3473], MUST be followed in all cases not explicitly described in
this document.
2.1. Ethernet Endpoint Identification
Ethernet endpoint identifiers, as they are defined in [G.8011] and
[MEF10.1], differ significantly from the identifiers used by GMPLS.
Specifically, the Ethernet endpoint identifiers are character based
as opposed to the GMPLS norm of being IP address based.
The approach taken by this document to address this disparity
leverages the solution used for connection identification, see
Section 2.2 and [RFC 4974], and a new CALL_ATTRIBUTES TLV defined in
this document. The solution makes use of the [RFC 4974] short Call
ID, and supports the Ethernet endpoint identifier similar to how
[RFC 4974] supports the long Call ID. That is, the SENDER_TEMPLATE
and SESSION objects carry IP addresses and a short Call ID, and long
identifiers are carried in the CALL_ATTRIBUTES object. As with the
long Call ID, the Ethernet endpoint identifier is typically only
relevant at the ingress and egress nodes.
As defined below, the Ethernet endpoint identifier is carried in the
CALL_ATTRIBUTES object in a new TLV. The new TLV is referred to as
the Endpoint ID TLV. The processing of the Endpoint ID TLV parallels
the processing of the long Call ID in [RFC 4974]. This processing
requires the inclusion of the CALL_ATTRIBUTES object in a Notify
message.
2.1.1. Endpoint ID TLV
The Endpoint ID TLV follows the Attributes TLV format defined in
[RFC 6001]. The Endpoint ID TLV has the following format:
Berger & Fedyk Standards Track PAGE 5
RFC 6004 GMPLS Support for MEF and G.8011 October 2010
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (30) | Length (variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Endpoint ID |
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type and Length fields are defined in [RFC 6001]. Note that as
defined in [RFC 6001], the Length field is set to length of the whole
TLV including the Type, Length, and Endpoint ID fields.
Endpoint ID
The Endpoint ID field is a variable-size field that carries an
endpoint identifier, see [MEF10.1] and [G.8011]. This field MUST
be null padded as defined in [RFC 6001].
2.1.1.1. Procedures
The use of the Endpoint ID TLV is required during Call management.
When a Call is established or torn down per [RFC 4974], a
CALL_ATTRIBUTES object containing an Endpoint ID TLV MUST be included
in the Notify message along with the long Call ID.
Short Call ID processing, including those procedures related to Call
and connection processing, is not modified by this document and MUST
proceed according to [RFC 4974].
2.2. Connection Identification
Signaling for Ethernet connections follows the procedures defined in
[RFC 4974]. In particular, the Call-related mechanisms are used to
support endpoint identification. In the context of Ethernet
connections, a Call is only established when one or more LSPs
(connections in [RFC 4974] terms) are needed. An LSP will always be
established within the context of a Call and, typically, only one LSP
will be used per Call. See Section 4.4 for the case where more than
one LSP may exist within a Call.
2.2.1. Procedures
Any node that supports Ethernet connections MUST be able to accept
and process Call setups per [RFC 4974]. Ethernet connections
established according to this document MUST treat the Ethernet
(virtual) connection identifier as the long "Call identifier (ID)",
Berger & Fedyk Standards Track PAGE 6
RFC 6004 GMPLS Support for MEF and G.8011 October 2010
described in [RFC 4974]. The short Call ID MUST be used as described
in [RFC 4974]. Use of the LINK_CAPABILITY object is OPTIONAL. Both
network-initiated and user-initiated Calls MUST be supported.
When establishing an Ethernet connection, the initiator MUST first
establish a Call per the procedures defined in [RFC 4974]. LSP
management, including removal and addition, then follows [RFC 4974].
As stated in [RFC 4974], once a Call is established, the initiator
SHOULD establish at least one Ethernet LSP. Also, when the last LSP
associated with a Call is removed, the Call SHOULD be torn down per
the procedures in [RFC 4974].
2.3. Traffic Parameters
Several types of service attributes are carried in the traffic
parameters defined in [RFC 6003]. These parameters are carried in the
FLOWSPEC and TSPEC objects as discussed in [RFC 6003]. The service
attributes that are carried are:
- Bandwidth Profile
- VLAN Class of Service (CoS) Preservation
- Layer 2 Control Protocol (L2CP) Processing (see Section 2.3.1)
Ethernet connections established according to this document MUST use
the traffic parameters defined in [RFC 6003] in the FLOWSPEC and TSPEC
objects. Additionally, the Switching Granularity field of the
Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object MUST be set to zero (0).
2.3.1. L2 Control Protocol TLV
[MEF10.1], [G.8011.1], and [G.8011.2] define service attributes that
impact the layer two (L2) control protocol processing at the ingress
and egress. [RFC 6003] does not define support for these service
attributes, but does allow the attributes to be carried in a TLV.
This section defines the L2CP TLV to carry the L2CP-processing-
related service attributes.
The format of the L2 Control Protocol (L2CP) TLV is as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type=3 | Length=8 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IL2CP | EL2CP | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Berger & Fedyk Standards Track PAGE 7
RFC 6004 GMPLS Support for MEF and G.8011 October 2010
See [RFC 6003] for a description of the Type and Length fields.
Per [RFC 6003], the Type field MUST be set to three (3), and the
Length field MUST be set to eight (8) for the L2CP TLV.
Ingress Layer 2 Control Processing (IL2CP): 4 bits
This field controls processing of Layer 2 Control Protocols on
a receiving interface. Valid usage is service specific, see
[MEF10.1], [G.8011.1], and [G.8011.2].
Permitted values are:
Value Description Reference
----- ----------- ---------
0 Reserved
1 Discard/Block [MEF10.1], [G.8011.1], and [G.8011.2]
2 Peer/Process [MEF10.1], [G.8011.1], and [G.8011.2]
3 Pass to EVC/Pass [MEF10.1], [G.8011.1], and [G.8011.2]
4 Peer and Pass to EVC [MEF10.1]
Egress Layer 2 Control Processing (EL2CP): 4 bits
This field controls processing of Layer 2 Control Protocols on a
transmitting interface. When MEF services are used a value of 1 MUST
be used, other valid usage is service specific, see [G.8011.1] and
[G.8011.2].
Permitted values are:
Value Description Reference
----- ----------- ---------
0 Reserved
1 Based on IL2CP Value [MEF10.1]
2 Generate [G.8011.1] and [G.8011.2]
3 None [G.8011.1] and [G.8011.2]
4 Reserved
Reserved: 24 bits
This field is reserved. It MUST be set to zero on transmission and
MUST be ignored on receipt. This field SHOULD be passed unmodified
by transit nodes.
Ethernet connections established according to this document MUST
include the L2CP TLV in the [RFC 6003] traffic parameters carried in
the FLOWSPEC and TSPEC objects.
Berger & Fedyk Standards Track PAGE 8
RFC 6004 GMPLS Support for MEF and G.8011 October 2010
2.4. Bundling and VLAN Identification
The control of bundling and listing of VLAN identifiers is only
supported for EVPL services. EVPL service specific details are
provided in Section 4.
3. EPL Service
Both [MEF6] and [G.8011.1] define an Ethernet Private Line (EPL)
service. In the words of [G.8011.1], EPL services carry "Ethernet
characteristic information over dedicated bandwidth, point-to-point
connections, provided by SDH, ATM, MPLS, PDH, ETY or OTH server layer
networks". [G.8011.1] defines two types of Ethernet Private Line
(EPL) services. Both types present a service where all data
presented on a port is transported to the corresponding connected
port. The types differ in that EPL type 1 service operates at the
MAC frame layer, while EPL type 2 service operates at the line (e.g.,
8B/10B) encoding layer. [MEF6] only defines one type of EPL service,
and it matches [G.8011.1] EPL type 1 service. Signaling for LSPs
that support both types of EPL services are detailed below.
3.1. EPL Service Parameters
Signaling for the EPL service types only differ in the LSP Encoding
Type used. The LSP Encoding Type used for each are:
EPL Service LSP Encoding Type (Value) Reference
----------- ------------------------- ---------
Type 1/MEF Ethernet (2) [RFC 3471]
Type 2 Line (e.g., 8B/10B)(14) [RFC 6004]
The other LSP parameters specific to EPL Service are:
Parameter Name (Value) Reference
-------------- ----------------- ------------------
Switching Type DCSC (125) [RFC 6002]
G-PID Ethernet PHY (33) [RFC 3471][RFC 4328]
The parameters defined in this section MUST be used when establishing
and controlling LSPs that provide EPL service type Ethernet
switching. The procedures defined in Section 2 and the other
procedures defined in [RFC 3473] for the establishment and management
of bidirectional LSPs MUST be followed when establishing and
controlling LSPs that provide EPL service type Ethernet switching.
Berger & Fedyk Standards Track PAGE 9
RFC 6004 GMPLS Support for MEF and G.8011 October 2010
4. EVPL Service
EVPL service is defined within the context of both [G.8011.2] and
[MEF6]. EVPL service allows for multiple Ethernet connections per
port, each of which supports a specific set of VLAN IDs. The service
attributes identify different forms of EVPL services, e.g., bundled
or unbundled. Independent of the different forms, LSPs supporting
EVPL Ethernet type switching are signaled using the same mechanisms
to communicate the one or more VLAN IDs associated with a particular
LSP (Ethernet connection).
The relevant [RFC 3471] parameter values that MUST be used for EVPL
connections are:
Parameter Name (Value) Reference
-------------- ----------------- ------------------
Switching Type EVPL (30) [RFC 6004]
LSP Encoding Type Ethernet (2) [RFC 3471]
G-PID Ethernet PHY (33) [RFC 3471][RFC 4328]
As with EPL, the procedures defined in Section 2 and the other
procedures defined in [RFC 3473] for the establishment and management
of bidirectional LSPs MUST be followed when establishing and
controlling LSPs that provide EVPL service type Ethernet switching.
LSPs that provide EVPL service type Ethernet switching MUST use the
EVPL Generalized Label Format per Section 4.1, and the Generalized
Channel_Set Label Objects per [RFC 6002]. A notable implication of
bundled EVPL services and carrying multiple VLAN IDs is that a Path
message may grow to be larger than a single (fragmented or non-
fragmented) IP packet. The basic approach to solving this is to
allow for multiple LSPs which are associated with a single Call, see
Section 2.2. The specifics of this approach are describe below in
Section 4.4.
4.1. EVPL Generalized Label Format
Bundled EVPL services require the use of a service-specific label,
called the EVPL Generalized Label. For consistency, non-bundled EVPL
services also use the same label.
The format for the Generalized Label (Label Type value 2) used with
EVPL services is:
Berger & Fedyk Standards Track PAGE 10
RFC 6004 GMPLS Support for MEF and G.8011 October 2010
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Rsvd | VLAN ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Reserved: 4 bits
This field is reserved. It MUST be set to zero on transmission
and MUST be ignored on receipt. This field SHOULD be passed
unmodified by transit nodes.
VLAN ID: 12 bits
A VLAN identifier.
4.2. Egress VLAN ID Control and VLAN ID Preservation
When an EVPL service is not configured for both bundling and VLAN ID
preservation, [MEF6] allows VLAN ID mapping. In particular, the
single VLAN ID used at the incoming interface of the ingress may be
mapped to a different VLAN ID at the outgoing interface at the egress
UNI. Such mapping MUST be requested and signaled based on the
explicit label control mechanism defined in [RFC 3473] and clarified
in [RFC 4003].
When the explicit label control mechanism is not used, VLAN IDs MUST
be preserved, i.e., not modified, across an LSP.
4.3. Single Call - Single LSP
For simplicity in management, a single LSP SHOULD be used for each
EVPL type LSP whose Path and Resv messages fit within a single
unfragmented IP packet. This allows the reuse of all standard LSP
modification procedures. Of particular note is the modification of
the VLAN IDs associated with the Ethernet connection. Specifically,
[RFC 6002], make-before-break procedures SHOULD be used to modify the
Channel_Set LABEL object.
4.4. Single Call - Multiple LSPs
Multiple LSPs MAY be used to support an EVPL service connection. All
such LSPs MUST be established within the same Call and follow Call-
related procedures, see Section 2.2. The primary purpose of multiple
LSPs is to support the case in which the related objects result in a
Path message being larger than a single unfragmented IP packet.
Berger & Fedyk Standards Track PAGE 11
RFC 6004 GMPLS Support for MEF and G.8011 October 2010
When using multiple LSPs, all LSPs associated with the same Call/EVPL
connection MUST be signaled with the same LSP objects with the
exception of the SENDER_TEMPLATE, SESSION, and label-related objects.
All such LSPs SHOULD share resources. When using multiple LSPs, VLAN
IDs MAY be added to the EVPL connection using either a new LSP or
make-before-break procedures, see [RFC 3209]. Make-before-break
procedures on individual LSPs SHOULD be used to remove VLAN IDs.
To change other service parameters it is necessary to re-signal all
LSPs associated with the Call via make-before-break procedures.
5. IANA Considerations
IANA has assigned new values for namespaces defined in this document
and summarized in this section. The registries are available from
http://www.iana.org.
5.1. Endpoint ID Attributes TLV
IANA has made the following assignment in the "Call Attributes TLV"
section of the "RSVP Parameters" registry.
Type Name Reference
---- ----------- ---------
2 Endpoint ID [RFC 6004]
5.2. Line LSP Encoding
IANA has made the following assignment in the "LSP Encoding Types"
section of the "GMPLS Signaling Parameters" registry.
Value Type Reference
----- --------------------------- ---------
14 Line (e.g., 8B/10B) [RFC 6004]
5.3. Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) Switching Type
IANA has made the following assignment in the "Switching Types"
section of the "GMPLS Signaling Parameters" registry.
Value Type Reference
----- ------------------------------------ ---------
30 Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) [RFC 6004]
The assigned value has been reflected in IANAGmplsSwitchingTypeTC of
the IANA-GMPLS-TC-MIB available from http://www.iana.org.
Berger & Fedyk Standards Track PAGE 12
RFC 6004 GMPLS Support for MEF and G.8011 October 2010
6. Security Considerations
This document introduces new message object formats for use in GMPLS
signaling [RFC 3473]. It does not introduce any new signaling
messages, nor change the relationship between Label Switching Routers
(LSRs) that are adjacent in the control plane. As such, this
document introduces no additional security considerations to those
discussed in [RFC 3473].
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[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 3471] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC
3471, January 2003.
[RFC 3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473,
January 2003.
[RFC 4003] Berger, L., "GMPLS Signaling Procedure for Egress
Control", RFC 4003, February 2005.
[RFC 4974] Papadimitriou, D. and A. Farrel, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in Support of Calls", RFC
4974, August 2007.
[RFC 6001] Papadimitriou, D., Vigoureux, M., Shiomoto, K., Brungard,
D. and JL. Le Roux, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Protocol
Extensions for Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks
(MLN/MRN)", RFC 6001, October 2010.
[RFC 6002] Berger, L. and D. Fedyk, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Data
Channel Switching Capable (DCSC) and Channel Set Label
Extensions", RFC 6002, October 2010.
[RFC 6003] Papadimitriou, D., "Ethernet Traffic Parameters," RFC
6003, October 2010.
Berger & Fedyk Standards Track PAGE 13
RFC 6004 GMPLS Support for MEF and G.8011 October 2010
7.2. Informative References
[G.8011] ITU-T G.8011/Y.1307, "Ethernet over Transport Ethernet
services framework", August 2004.
[G.8011.1] ITU-T G.G.8011.1/Y.1307.1, "Ethernet private line
service", August 2004.
[G.8011.2] ITU-T G.8011.2/Y.1307.2, "Ethernet virtual private line
service", September 2005.
[MEF6] The Metro Ethernet Forum, "Ethernet Services Definitions -
Phase I", MEF 6, June 2004.
[MEF10.1] The Metro Ethernet Forum, "Ethernet Services Attributes
Phase 2", MEF 10.1, November 2006.
[MEF11] The Metro Ethernet Forum , "User Network Interface (UNI)
Requirements and Framework", MEF 11, November 2004.
[RFC 4328] Papadimitriou, D., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical
Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328, January 2006.
[RFC 4875] Aggarwal, R., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Ed., and S.
Yasukawa, Ed., "Extensions to Resource Reservation
Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-
Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875, May
2007.
[RFC 6005] Berger, L. and D. Fedyk,"Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support
for Metro Ethernet Forum and G.8011 User Network Interface
(UNI)", RFC 6005, October 2010.
Acknowledgments
Dimitri Papadimitriou provided substantial textual contributions to
this document and coauthored earlier versions of this document.
The authors would like to thank Evelyne Roch, Stephen Shew, and Yoav
Cohen for their valuable comments.
Berger & Fedyk Standards Track PAGE 14
RFC 6004 GMPLS Support for MEF and G.8011 October 2010
Authors' Addresses
Lou Berger
LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Phone: +1-301-468-9228
EMail: lberger@labn.net
Don Fedyk
Alcatel-Lucent
Groton, MA 01450
Phone: +1-978-467-5645
EMail: donald.fedyk@alcatel-lucent.com
Berger & Fedyk Standards Track PAGE 15
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support for Metro Ethernet Forum and G.8011 Ethernet Service Switching
RFC TOTAL SIZE: 32319 bytes
PUBLICATION DATE: Monday, October 11th, 2010
LEGAL RIGHTS: The IETF Trust (see BCP 78)
|
