wdiff rfc7074.original rfc7074.txt

Internet Draft Lou Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Berger
Request for Comments: 7074 LabN
Updates: 3471, 4202, 4203, 5307 (LabN) J. Meuric
Category: Standards Track Julien Meuric
Expiration Date: February 23, 2014 (France Telecom Orange)

August 23, Orange
ISSN: 2070-1721 November 2013

Revised Definition of The the GMPLS Switching Capability and Type Fields

draft-ietf-ccamp-swcaps-update-03.txt

Abstract

GMPLS provides control for multiple switching technologies, technologies and for
hierarchical switching within a technology. GMPLS routing and
signaling use common values to indicate the type of switching technology type.
technology. These values are carried in routing in protocols via the
Switching Capability field, and in signaling in protocols via the
Switching Type field. While the values used in these fields are the
primary indicators of the technology and hierarchy level being
controlled, the values are not consistently defined and used across
the different technologies supported by GMPLS. This document is
intended to resolve the inconsistent definition and use of the
Switching Capability and Type fields by narrowly scoping the meaning
and use of the fields. This document updates any document all documents that uses use
the GMPLS Switching Capability and Types fields, in particular RFC RFCs
3471, RFC 4202, RFC 4203, and RFC 5307.

Status of this This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents an Internet Standards Track document.

This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum
(IETF). It represents the consensus of six months the IETF community. It has
received public review and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted has been approved for publication by other documents at any
time. It the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work available in progress."

The list Section 2 of RFC 5741.

Information about the current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html

The list status of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be accessed obtained at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

This Internet-Draft will expire on February 23, 2014
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7074.

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.

1. Introduction

Generalized Multi-Protocol Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) provides control
for multiple switching technologies. It also supports hierarchical
switching within a technology. The original GMPLS Architecture, per
[RFC3945], included support for five types of switching capabilities.
An additional type was also been defined in [RFC6002]. The switching
types defined in these documents include:

1. Packet Switch Capable (PSC)

2. Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC)

3. Time-Division Multiplex Capable (TDM)

4. Lambda Switch Capable (LSC)

5. Fiber-Switch Capable (FSC)

6. Data Channel Switching Capable (DCSC)

Support for the original types was defined for routing in [RFC4202],
[RFC4203], and [RFC5307], where the types were represented in the
Switching Capability (Switching Cap) field. In general, hierarchy
within a type is addressed in a type-specific fashion fashion, and a single
Switching Capability field value is defined per type. The exception
to this is PSC PSC, which was assigned four values to indicate four
levels of hierarchy: PSC-1, PSC-2, PSC-3 PSC-3, and PSC-4. The same values
used in routing are defined for signaling in [RFC3471], and are
carried in the Switching Type field. Following the IANA registry, we
refer to the values used in the routing Switching Capability field
and signaling Switching Type field as Switching Types.

In general, a Switching Type does not indicate a specific data plane
technology, but rather data-plane
technology; this needs to be inferred from context. For
example example,
L2SC was defined to cover Ethernet and ATM, and TDM was defined to
cover both SONET/SDH [RFC4606] and G.709 [RFC4328]. The basic
assumption was that different technologies of the same type would
never operate within the same control, i.e., signaling and
routing, routing
domains.

The past approach in assignment of Switching Types has proven to be
problematic from two perspectives. The first issue is that some
examples of switching technologies have different levels of switching
that can be performed within the same technology. For example, there
are multiple types of Ethernet switching that may occur within a
provider network. The second issues issue is that the Switching Capability
field value is used in Interior Gateway Protocols (IGPs) to indicate
the format of the Switching Capability-specific information (SCSI)
field, and that an implicit mapping of type to SCSI format is
impractical for implementations that support multiple switching
technologies. These issues led to the introduction of two new types
for Ethernet in [RFC6004] and [RFC6060], namely:

7. Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL)

8. 802_1 PBB-TE (Provider Backbone Bridge - Traffic Engineering)

An additional value is also envisioned to be assigned in support of
G.709v3 by [GMPLS-G709] in order to disambiguate the format of the
SCSI field.

While a common representation of hierarchy levels within a switching
technology certainly fits the design objectives of GMPLS, the
definition of multiple PSC Switching Types has also proven to be of
little value. Notably, there are no known uses of PSC-2, PSC-3 PSC-3, and
PSC-4.

This document proposes to resolve such inconsistent definitions and
uses of the Switching Types by reducing the scope of the related
fields and narrowing their use. In particular particular, this document proposes
deprecating
deprecates the use of the Switching Types as an identifier of
hierarchy levels within a switching technology, technology and limit limits its use to
the identification of a per-switching technology SCSI field format.

This document updates any document all documents that uses use the GMPLS Switching
Capability and Switching Type fields, in particular RFCs 3471, 4202,
4203, and 5307.

1.1. Current Switching Type Definition

The Switching Type values are carried in both routing and signaling
protocols. Values are identified in the IANA GMPLS Signaling
Parameters IANA's "Generalized Multi-
Protocol Label Switching Type (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters" registry,
which is currently located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters/gmpls-sig-
parameters.xml <http://www.iana.org/assignments/
gmpls-sig-parameters/>.

For routing, a common information element is defined to carry
switching type
Switching Type values for both OSPF and IS-IS routing protocols in
[RFC4202]. Per [RFC4202], switching type Switching Type values are carried in a
Switching Capability (Switching Cap) field in an Interface Switching
Capability Descriptor. This information shares a common formatting
in both OSPF, OSPF as defined by [RFC4203], [RFC4203] and in IS-IS, IS-IS as defined by
[RFC5307]:

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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Switching Cap | Encoding | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Switching Capability-specific information |
| (variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

and

...

The content of the Switching Capability-specific information field
depends on the value of the Switching Capability field.

Similarly, the Switching Type field is defined as part of a common
format for use by GMPLS signaling protocols in [RFC3471] and is used
by [RFC3473]:

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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

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 ...

1.2. Conventions Used In This Document

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

2. Revised Switching Type Definition

This document modifies the definition of Switching Type. The
definitions are slightly different for routing and signaling and are
described in the following sections.

2.1. Routing -- Switching Cap Field

For routing, i.e., [RFC4202], [RFC4203], and routing [RFC4202] [RFC4203] [RFC5307], the following definition
should be used for Switching Cap field:

The Switching Cap field indicates the type of switching being
advertised via GMPLS Switching Type values. A different Switching
Type value SHOULD be used for each data plane technology data-plane technology, even
when those technologies share the same type of multiplexing or
switching. For example, Time Division Multiplexing (TDM)
technologies that have different multiplexing structures, such as
SDH
Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) [G.707] and OTN Optical Transport
Network (OTN) [G.709], should use two different Switching Types.

As the format of the Switching Capability-specific information
field is dependent on the value of this field, a different
Switching Type value MUST be used to differentiate between
different Switching Capability-specific information field formats.

This definition does not modify the format of the Interface
Switching Capability Descriptor.

Note that from a practical standpoint, this means that any time a new
switching technology might use a different Switching Capability-
specific information field format, that a new Switching Type SHOULD be
used.

2.2. Signaling -- Switching Type Field

For signaling, i.e., [RFC3471] signaling [RFC3471], which is used by [RFC3473], the following
definition should be used for the Switching Type field:

Indicates the type of switching that should be performed on a
particular link via GMPLS Switching Type values. This field maps
to one of the values advertised for the corresponding link in the
routing Switching Capability Descriptor, see [RFC4203] and
[RFC5307].

Note that from a practical standpoint, there is no change in the
definition of this field.

2.3. Assigned Switching Types

This document deprecates the following Switching Types:

Value Name
2 Packet-Switch Capable-2 (PSC-2)
3 Packet-Switch Capable-3 (PSC-3)
4 Packet-Switch Capable-4 (PSC-4)

These values SHOULD be treated as unsupported types and, in the
case of signaling, processed according to Section 2.1.1 of
[RFC3473].

3. Compatibility

For existing implementations, the primary impact of this document is
deprecating the use of PSC-2, 3 3, and 4. At the time of publication,
there are no known deployments (or even implementations) that make
use of these values values, so there is are no compatibility issues for current
routing and signaling implementations.

4. Security Considerations

This document impacts the values carried in a single field in
signaling and routing. routing protocols. As no new protocol formats or
mechanisms are defined, there are no particular security implications
raised by this document.

For a general discussion on MPLS MPLS- and GMPLS related GMPLS-related security issues,
see the MPLS/GMPLS security framework [RFC5920].

5. IANA Considerations

IANA needs to deprecate has deprecated some values and redefine redefined the related registry. values in
the "IANA-GMPLS-TC-MIB" definitions. In
particular particular, the Switching
Types portion of the Generalized Multi-
Protocol "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Parameters should be Parameters" registry been revised to read:

Switching Types

Registration Procedures

Standards Action

Reference
[RFC3471][RFC4328][This.draft]
[RFC3471][RFC4328][This Document]

Value Name Reference
0 Unassigned
1 Packet-Switch Capable-1 (PSC-1) [RFC3471]
2 Deprecated [This.draft] [This Document]
3 Deprecated [This.draft] [This Document]
4 Deprecated [This.draft] [This Document]
5-29 Unassigned
30 Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) [RFC6004]
31-39 Unassigned
40 802_1 PBB-TE [RFC6060]
41-50 Unassigned
51 Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC) [RFC3471]
52-99 Unassigned
100 Time-Division-Multiplex Capable (TDM) [RFC3471]
101-124 Unassigned
125 Data Channel Switching Capable (DCSC) [RFC6002]
126-149 Unassigned
150 Lambda-Switch Capable (LSC) [RFC3471]
151-199 Unassigned
200 Fiber-Switch Capable (FSC) [RFC3471]
201-255 Unassigned

A parallel change to IANA-GMPLS-TC-MIB is was also required. made. In particular,
under IANAGmplsSwitchingTypeTC a reference to this document should be has been
added as item 3. Also the The following changes should
be have also been made to the
related values:

psc2(2), -- Deprecated [This.draft] [This Document]
psc3(3), -- Deprecated [This.draft] [This Document]
psc4(4), -- Deprecated [This.draft] [This Document]

6. Acknowledgments

We thank John Drake for highlighting the current inconsistent
definitions associated with the Switching Capability and Type Fields. fields.
Daniele Ceccarelli and Adrian Farrel provided valuable feedback on
this document.

7. References

7.1. Normative References

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "RFC Key Words Key "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

[RFC3471] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC
3471, January 2003.

[RFC4202] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Y., Ed., "Routing
Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005.

[RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Y., Ed., "OSPF Extensions
in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005.

[RFC5307] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Y., Ed., "IS-IS
Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 5307, October 2008.

7.2. Informative References

[G.707] ITU-T Recommendation G.707/Y.1322 (2007), "Network node
interface for the synchronous digital hierarchy (SDH)".

[G.709] ITU-T Recommendation G.709/Y.1331 (2009), "Interfaces
for the Optical Transport Network (OTN)".

[GMPLS-G709] Zhang, F., Li, D., Li, H., Belotti, S., and D.
Ceccarelli,
D., "Framework for GMPLS and PCE Control of
G.709 Optical Transport Networks", work Work in progress,
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework. Progress,
September 2013.

[RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC
3473, January 2003.

[RFC3945] Mannie, E., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004.

[RFC4328] Papadimitriou, D., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709
Optical Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328, January
2006.

[RFC4606] Mannie, E., E. and D. Papadimitriou, D., "Generalized
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for
Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous
Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control", RFC 4606, August 2006.

[RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.

[RFC6002] Berger, L., L. and D. Fedyk, D., "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Data
Channel Switching Capable (DCSC) and Channel Set Label
Extensions", RFC 6002, October 2010.

[RFC6004] Berger, L., L. and D. Fedyk, D., "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
Support for Metro Ethernet Forum and G.8011 Ethernet
Service Switching", RFC 6004, front October 2010.

[RFC6060] Fedyk, D., Shah, H., Bitar, N., and A. Takacs, A.,
"Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Control of Ethernet Provider Backbone Traffic
Engineering (PBB-TE)", RFC 6060, March 2011.

8. Authors' Addresses

Lou Berger
LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Phone: +1 301 468 9228
Email:

EMail: lberger@labn.net

Julien Meuric
France Telecom
Orange
Research & Development
2, Avenue Pierre Marzin
22307 Lannion Cedex - -- France

Phone: +33 2 96 05 28 28
Email:
EMail: julien.meuric@orange.com

Generated on: Fri, Aug 23, 2013 9:41:40 AM