draft-berger-ccamp-swcaps-update-01.txt   draft-berger-ccamp-swcaps-update-02.txt 
Internet Draft Lou Berger (LabN) Internet Draft Lou Berger (LabN)
Updates: 3471, 4202, 4203, 5307 Julien Meuric (France Telecom) Updates: 3471, 4202, 4203, 5307 Julien Meuric (France Telecom)
Category: Standards Track Category: Standards Track
Expiration Date: November 20, 2012 Expiration Date: January 4, 2013
May 20, 2012 July 4, 2012
Revised Definition of The GMPLS Switching Capability and Type Fields Revised Definition of The GMPLS Switching Capability and Type Fields
draft-berger-ccamp-swcaps-update-01.txt draft-berger-ccamp-swcaps-update-02.txt
Abstract Abstract
GMPLS provides control for multiple switching technologies, and GMPLS provides control for multiple switching technologies, and
hierarchical switching within a technology. GMPLS routing and hierarchical switching within a technology. GMPLS routing and
signaling use common values to indicate switching technology type. signaling use common values to indicate switching technology type.
These values are carried in routing in the Switching Capability These values are carried in routing in the Switching Capability
field, and in signaling in the Switching Type field. While the field, and in signaling in the Switching Type field. While the
values using in these fields are the primary indicators of the values using in these fields are the primary indicators of the
technology and hierarchy level being controlled, the values are technology and hierarchy level being controlled, the values are
skipping to change at page 1, line 51 skipping to change at page 1, line 51
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 20, 2012 This Internet-Draft will expire on January 4, 2013
Copyright and License Notice Copyright and License Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 3, line 33 skipping to change at page 3, line 33
technology certainly fits the design objectives of GMPLS, the technology certainly fits the design objectives of GMPLS, the
definition of multiple PSC Switching Types has also proven to be of 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 and little value. Notably, there are no known uses of PSC-2, PSC-3 and
PSC-4. PSC-4.
This document proposes to resolve such inconsistent definitions and This document proposes to resolve such inconsistent definitions and
uses of the Switching Types by reducing the scope of the related uses of the Switching Types by reducing the scope of the related
fields and narrowing their use. In particular this document proposes fields and narrowing their use. In particular this document proposes
deprecating the use of the Switching Types as an identifier of deprecating the use of the Switching Types as an identifier of
hierarchy levels within a switching technology, and limit its use to hierarchy levels within a switching technology, and limit its use to
identification of a per-switching technology SCSI field format. This identification of a per-switching technology SCSI field format.
document also defines, for routing, a generic method for identifying
a hierarchy levels within a switching technology.
An alternate approach, which is not advocated by this document, is to
ensure that Switching Types are assigned for all hierarchy levels
within a switching technology as part of any new work, e.g., as part
of [GMPLS-G709].
This document updates any document that uses the GMPLS Switching This document updates any document that uses the GMPLS Switching
Capability and Switching Type fields, in particular RFCs 3471, 4202, Capability and Switching Type fields, in particular RFCs 3471, 4202,
4203, and 5307. 4203, and 5307.
1.1. Current Switching Type Definition 1.1. Current Switching Type Definition
The Switching Type values are carried in both routing and signaling. The Switching Type values are carried in both routing and signaling.
Values are identified in the IANA GMPLS Signaling Parameters Values are identified in the IANA GMPLS Signaling Parameters
Switching Type registry, which is currently located at Switching Type registry, which is currently located at
skipping to change at page 4, line 18 skipping to change at page 4, line 10
Switching Capability (Switching Cap) field in an Interface Switching Switching Capability (Switching Cap) field in an Interface Switching
Capability Descriptor. This information shares a common formatting Capability Descriptor. This information shares a common formatting
in both OSPF, as defined by [RFC4203] and in IS-IS, as defined by in both OSPF, as defined by [RFC4203] and in IS-IS, as defined by
[RFC5307]: [RFC5307]:
0 1 2 3 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 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 Cap | Encoding | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
... ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Switching Capability-specific information | | Switching Capability-specific information |
| (variable) | | (variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
and and
The content of the Switching Capability specific information field The content of the Switching Capability specific information field
depends on the value of the Switching Capability field. depends on the value of the Switching Capability field.
skipping to change at page 6, line 17 skipping to change at page 6, line 8
This document deprecates the following Switching Types: This document deprecates the following Switching Types:
Value Name Value Name
2 Packet-Switch Capable-2 (PSC-2) 2 Packet-Switch Capable-2 (PSC-2)
3 Packet-Switch Capable-3 (PSC-3) 3 Packet-Switch Capable-3 (PSC-3)
4 Packet-Switch Capable-4 (PSC-4) 4 Packet-Switch Capable-4 (PSC-4)
These values SHOULD NOT be treated as reserved values, i.e., These values SHOULD NOT be treated as reserved values, i.e.,
SHOULD NOT be generated and SHOULD be ignored upon receipt. SHOULD NOT be generated and SHOULD be ignored upon receipt.
3. Intra-Technology Hierarchy 3. Compatibility
[Authors note: This section is for discussion and may be dropped.
Particularly, need to revisit MLN/IACD/XRO implications to ensure
there are no gating issues.]
Multiple switching technologies support forms of hierarchical
switching within a particular data plane technology. As discussed
above, GMPLS routing originally envisioned support for such cases for
packet networks using PSC-2, 3, 4. In other cases, GMPLS defined
support using technology specific mechanisms, for example Signal Type
was defined for SONET/SDH, see [RFC4606]. Given that one of the
objectives of GMPLS is to generalize control plane protocols, it is
reasonable to define a method for supporting hierarchical switching
within a particular data plane technology that is not specific to any
particular technology. This section defines such a mechanism for
routing. No additional mechanism is defined for signaling.
In order to support hierarchical switching within a particular data
plane technology in routing, this section defines the Intra-
Technology Hierarchy, or ITH, field. This field allows for
representation of up to 15 levels of hierarchical switching. It, for
example, can represent the bottom most level of a multiplexing
hierarchy. The ITH field is carried in a portion of the previously
defined reserved field of the Interface Switching Capability
Descriptor and 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Switching Cap | Encoding | Reserved | ITH |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
For compatibility reasons, an ITH value of 0 indicates that the ITH
field is not being used. The mapping of ITH values to specific
levels of hierarchy within a data plane technology is specific to
each switching technology and is therefore outside the scope of this
document.
4. Compatibility
This document has two impacts on existing implementations. Both
routing and signaling impacts must be considered.
For existing implementations, the primary impact is deprecating the For existing implementations, the primary impact of this document is
use of PSC-2, 3 and 4. At the time of publication of this document, deprecating the use of PSC-2, 3 and 4. At the time of publication,
there are no known deployments (or even implementations) that make there are no known deployments (or even implementations) that make
use of these values so there is no compatibility issues for current use of these values so there is no compatibility issues for current
routing and signaling implementations. routing and signaling implementations.
A secondary impact is the use of the previously reserved field of the 4. Security Considerations
routing Interface Switching Capability Descriptor. For existing
routing implementations, this field should be set to all zeros when
generating a Descriptor, and should be ignored on receipt.
Furthermore, existing nodes are expected to propagate reserved fields
without any modification. Therefore the use of this reserved field
is not considered to result in any compatibility issues in routing.
As this field is not used in signaling, there are no signaling
compatibility issues.
5. Security Considerations
This document impacts the values carried in a single field in This document impacts the values carried in a single field in
signaling and routing. As no new protocol formats or mechanisms are signaling and routing. As no new protocol formats or mechanisms are
defined, there are no particular security implications raised by this defined, there are no particular security implications raised by this
document. document.
For a general discussion on MPLS and GMPLS related security issues, For a general discussion on MPLS and GMPLS related security issues,
see the MPLS/GMPLS security framework [RFC5920]. see the MPLS/GMPLS security framework [RFC5920].
6. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
IANA needs to deprecate and redefine the registry. IANA needs to deprecate and redefine the registry. In particular the
Switching Types portion of the Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters should be revised to read:
7. Acknowledgments Switching Types
Registration Procedures
Standards Action
Reference
[RFC3471][RFC4328][This.draft]
Value Name Reference
0 Unassigned
1 Packet-Switch Capable-1 (PSC-1) [RFC3471]
2 Deprecated [This.draft]
3 Deprecated [This.draft]
4 Deprecated [This.draft]
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
6. Acknowledgments
We thank John Drake for highlighting the current inconsistent We thank John Drake for highlighting the current inconsistent
definitions associated with the Switching Capability and Type Fields. definitions associated with the Switching Capability and Type Fields.
Daniele Ceccarelli provided valuable feedback on this document. Daniele Ceccarelli provided valuable feedback on this document.
8. References 7. References
8.1. Normative References 7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "RFC Key Words Key words for use in RFCs to [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "RFC Key Words Key words for use in RFCs to
Indicate Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997. Indicate Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching [RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471,
January 2003. January 2003.
[RFC4202] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "Routing Extensions in [RFC4202] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "Routing Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005. (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005.
[RFC4203] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "OSPF Extensions in Support [RFC4203] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "OSPF Extensions in Support
of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)",
RFC 4203, October 2005. RFC 4203, October 2005.
[RFC5307] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "IS-IS Extensions in Support [RFC5307] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "IS-IS Extensions in Support
of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)",
RFC 5307, October 2008. RFC 5307, October 2008.
8.2. Informative References 7.2. Informative References
[G.707] ITU-T Recommendation G.707/Y.1322 (2007), "Network node [G.707] ITU-T Recommendation G.707/Y.1322 (2007), "Network node
interface for the synchronous digital hierarchy (SDH)". interface for the synchronous digital hierarchy (SDH)".
[G.709] ITU-T Recommendation G.709/Y.1331 (2009), "Interfaces for [G.709] ITU-T Recommendation G.709/Y.1331 (2009), "Interfaces for
the Optical Transport Network (OTN)". the Optical Transport Network (OTN)".
[GMPLS-G709] Zhang, F., Li, D., Li, H., Belotti, S., Ceccarelli, [GMPLS-G709] Zhang, F., Li, D., Li, H., Belotti, S., Ceccarelli,
D., "Framework for GMPLS and PCE Control of G.709 D., "Framework for GMPLS and PCE Control of G.709
Optical Transport Networks", work in progress, Optical Transport Networks", work in progress,
skipping to change at page 9, line 26 skipping to change at page 8, line 43
[RFC6004] Berger, L., Fedyk, D., "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support [RFC6004] Berger, L., Fedyk, D., "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support
for Metro Ethernet Forum and G.8011 Ethernet Service for Metro Ethernet Forum and G.8011 Ethernet Service
Switching", RFC 6004, front 2010. Switching", RFC 6004, front 2010.
[RFC6060] Fedyk, D., Shah, H., Bitar, N., Takacs, A., "Generalized [RFC6060] Fedyk, D., Shah, H., Bitar, N., Takacs, A., "Generalized
Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Control of Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Control of
Ethernet Provider Backbone Traffic Engineering Ethernet Provider Backbone Traffic Engineering
(PBB-TE)", RFC 6060, March 2011. (PBB-TE)", RFC 6060, March 2011.
9. Authors' Addresses 8. Authors' Addresses
Lou Berger Lou Berger
LabN Consulting, L.L.C. LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Phone: +1-301-468-9228 Phone: +1-301-468-9228
Email: lberger@labn.net Email: lberger@labn.net
Julien Meuric Julien Meuric
France Telecom France Telecom
Research & Development Research & Development
2, avenue Pierre Marzin 2, avenue Pierre Marzin
22307 Lannion Cedex - France 22307 Lannion Cedex - France
Phone: +33 2 96 05 28 28 Phone: +33 2 96 05 28 28
Email: julien.meuric@orange-ftgroup.com Email: julien.meuric@orange-ftgroup.com
Generated on: Fri, May 18, 2012 5:29:08 PM Generated on: Wed, Jul 04, 2012 12:19:48 PM
 End of changes. 18 change blocks. 
77 lines changed or deleted 50 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/