Network Working Group
D.Dimitri Papadimitriou Internet Draft Alcatel-Lucent Intended status: Standards Track October 31, 2008 Expires:April 30,7, 2009 Expires: October 6, 2009 Ethernet Traffic Parameters draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-traffic-parameters-06.txtdraft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-traffic-parameters-07.txt Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or sheThis Internet-Draft is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed,submitted to IETF in accordancefull conformance with Section 6the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents 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 of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txthttp://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html This Internet-Draft will expire on April 30, 2009. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Abstract This document describes the Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) - specific Ethernet Traffic Parameters as described in MEF10.1 when using Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) signaling. 1. Introduction Per [RFC3471], GMPLSGeneralized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) allows the inclusion of technology specific parameters in signaling. Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC and FLOWSPEC specific objects are introduced in this document that describe Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) Ethernet traffic parameters as specified in [MEF10.1]. These traffic parameters MUST be used when the L2SC value is specified in the LSP Switching Type field of a Generalized Label Request (see [RFC3471]) and the LSP encoding type is Ethernet. For example: o For Ethernet Private Line (EPL) services [MEF6], these traffic parameters are applicable non-discriminately to all EVCseach EVC crossing a given port. o For Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) services [MEF6], these traffic parameters are applicable per Ethernet Virtual Connection (EVC) with single or multiple Class of Service (CoS), independent of its associated (set of) VLAN ID (VID). Association between EVC and VIDs is detailed in [MEF10.1]. The format and encoding of the (set of) VIDs is documented in a companion document [GMPLS-ESVCS]. This does not prevent broader usage for Ethernet LSP of the traffic parameters specified in this document. 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 [RFC2119]. Moreover, the reader is assumed to be familiar with the terminology [MEF10.1] as well as [RFC3471] and [RFC3473]. 3. Overview The Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC/FLOWSPEC object includes the Ethernet link type (switching granularity) of the requested LSP, and the MTU value for the LSP. The Bandwidth Profile defines the set of traffic parameters applicable to a sequence of Service Frames, referred to as bandwidth profile parameters: o Committed Rate: indicates the rate at which traffic commits to be sent to the Ethernet LSP. The Committed Rate is described in terms of the CIR (Committed Information Rate) and CBS (Committed Burst Size) traffic parameters. o. CIR is defined as the average rate (in bytes per unit of time) up to which the network is committed to transfer frames and meets its performance objectives. o. CBS defines a limit on the maximum number of information units (e.g., bytes) available for a burst of frames sent at the interface speed to remain CIR-conformant. o Excess Rate: indicates the extent by which the traffic sent on an Ethernet LSP exceeds the committed rate. The Excess Rate is described in terms of the EIR (Excess Information Rate) and EBS (Excess Burst Size) traffic parameters. o. EIR is defined as the average rate (in bytes per unit of time), in excess of the CIR, up to which the network may transfer frames without any performance objectives. o. EBS defines a limit on the maximum number of information unit (e.g., bytes) available for a burst of frames sent at the interface speed to remain EIR-conformant. o Color mode (CM): indicates whether the "color-aware" or "color- blind" property is employed by the bandwidth profile. o Coupling flag (CF): allows the choice between two modes of operations of the rate enforcement algorithm. 4. Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC Object The Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object (Class-Num = 12, Class-Type = TBA by IANA, with recommended value 6) 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Length | Class-Num (12)| C-Type (6) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Switching Granularity | MTU | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ TLVs ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Switching Granularity (SG): 16 bits This field indicates the type of link that comprises the requested Ethernet LSP. The permitted Ethernet Link Type values are: Value Switching Granularity ----- --------------------- 0 Provided in signaling. See [GMPLS-ESVCS] 1 Ethernet Port (for port-based service) 2 Ethernet Frame (for EVC-based service) Values 0 through 127 are assigned by IANA via IETF Standards Track RFC action. Values 128 through 255 are reserved for vendor specific usage. MTU: 16 bits This is a two-octet value indicating the MTU in octets. The MTU field MUST NOT take a value smaller than 46 bytes for Ethernet v2 and 38 bytes for IEEE 802.3. TLV (Type-Length-Value): The Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object MUST include at least one TLV and MAY include more than one TLV. Each TLV MUST have the following format: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Value ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Type: 16 bits Defined values are: Type Length Format Description ------------------------------------------------------ 1 TBD Reserved Reserved value 2 24 see Section 3.1 Ethernet Bandwidth Profile [MEF10.1] 3 8 [GMPLS-ESVCS] Layer 2 Control Processing (L2CP) Values 0 and 255 are reserved. Values 1 through 239 are assigned by IANA via IETF Standards Track RFC Action. Values 240 through 254 are reserved for vendor specific usage. Length: 16 bits Indicates the length in bytes of the whole TLV including the Type and Length fields. A value field whose length is not a multiple of four MUST be zero-padded (with trailing zeros) so that the TLV is four-octet aligned. 4.1. Ethernet Bandwidth Profile TLV The Type 2 TLV specifies the Ethernet Bandwidth Profile. It defines an upper bound on the volume of the expected service frames belonging to a particular Ethernet service instance. The Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object MAY include more than one Ethernet Bandwidth Profile TLV. The Type 2 TLV has the following format: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Profile | Index | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | CIR | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | CBS | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | EIR | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | EBS | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Profile: 8 bits (this field is to be registered by IANA) This field is defined as a vector of binary flags. The following flags are defined: Flag 1 (bit 0): coupling flag (CF) Flag 2 (bit 1): color mode (CM) Where bit 0 is the low order bit. Other flags are reserved, they SHOULD be set to zero when sent, and SHOULD be ignored when received. A flag is set to value 1 to indicate that the corresponding metering is requested. The Flag 1 allows the choice between two modes of operations of the rate enforcement algorithm. The Flag 2 indicates whether the color-aware or color-blind property is employed by the bandwidth profile. When Flag 2 is set to value 0 (1), the bandwidth profile algorithm is said to be in color blind (color aware) mode. Index: 8 bits The index field is used to reference bandwidth allocated for a given traffic class in case a multiple-class LSP is being requested. The index field value MUST correspond to at least one of the index valuevalues included in the extended ClassTypeCLASSTYPE object [RFC4124] or EXTENDED_CLASSTYPE object ([DS- TE], [MCOS]).[MCOS]. A given index value j can be associated to at most N Class-Type values CTi (i =< N) of the extended Class-Type object. This applies in case a set of one or more CTi maps a single (shared) BW profile. An example of value setting consists then in assigning an arbitrary value (comprisedcomprised within the range [0x08,0xF8], defined by the 5 MSB of the Index field)[0x08,0xF8[ associated to a set of CTi.CTi, the values in the range [0xF8,0xFF] being selected for reserved sets. This allows mapping to one of 248 pre-defined CTi sets. A given index value j can be associated to a single CTi (1:1 correspondence). In this case, the index value setting consists then in assigning the 3 LSB of the index field itself to the CTi value itself (comprised in the range [0x00,0x07]). This applies in case a single CTi maps a single (dedicated) BW profile or multiple (dedicated) BW profiles. In the former case (single BW profile), the Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object includes a single Ethernet Bandwidth Profile TLV. In the second case, the Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC includes a set of more than one Ethernet Bandwidth Profile TLVs (whose respective Index value is associated to a single CTi value). Note that the current specification allow for combining shared and dedicated BW profiles to the same LSP. That is, an Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object MAY include multiple Ethernet Bandwidth Profile TLVs whose respective index can be associated on a 1:1 basis to a single CTi or to a set of multiple CTi. For each subobject of the extended Class-Type object [MCOS]: o Each CTi value SHOULD correspond 1:1 to MEF CE VLAN-CoS o The BW requested per CTi field MAY be used for bandwidth accounting purposes. By default, the value of the Index field MUST be set to 0. Reserved: 16 bits These bits SHOULD be set to zero when sent and MUST be ignored when received. CIR (Committed Information Rate): 32 bits The value of the CIR is in units of bytes per second. The CIR is encoded as a 32-bit IEEE single-precision floating-point number (see [RFC4506]). The CIR value MUST be greater than or equal to 0. CBS (Committed Burst Size): 32 bits The value of the CBS is in units of bytes. The CBS is encoded as a 32-bit IEEE single-precision floating-point number (see [RFC4506]). When CIR is strictly greater than 0 (CIR > 0), the CBS MUST be greater than or equal to the maximum frame size. EIR (Excess Information Rate): 32 bits The value of the EIR is in units of bytes per second. The EIR is encoded as a 32-bit IEEE single-precision floating-point number (see [RFC4506]). The EIR value MUST be greater than or equal to 0. EBS (Excess Burst Size): 32 bits The value of the EBS is in units of bytes. The EBS is encoded as a 32-bit IEEE single-precision floating-point number (see [RFC4506]). When EIR is strictly greater than 0 (EIR > 0), the EBS MUST be greater than or equal to the maximum frame size. 5. Ethernet FLOWSPEC Object The Ethernet FLOWSPEC object (Class-Num = 12, Class-Type = TBA by IANA, with recommended value 6) has the same format as the Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object. 6. Ethernet ADSPEC Object There is no ADSPEC object associated with the Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object. Either the ADSPEC object is omitted or an IntServ ADSPEC with the Default General Characterization Parameters and Guaranteed Service fragment is used, see [RFC2210]. 7. Processing The Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object carries the traffic specification generated by the RSVP session sender. The Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object SHOULD be forwarded and delivered unchanged to both intermediate and egress nodes. The Ethernet FLOWSPEC object carries reservation request information generated by receivers. As with any FLOWSPEC object, Ethernet FLOWSPEC object flows upstream toward the ingress node. Intermediate and egress nodes MUST verify that the node itself and the interfaces on which the LSP will be established can support the requested Switching Granularity, MTU and values included in sub- object TLVs. If the requested value(s) can not be supported, the receiver node MUST generate a PathErr message with the error code "Traffic Control Error" and the error value "Service unsupported" (see [RFC2205]). In addition, if the MTU field is received with a value smaller than the minimum transfer unit size of the Ethernet frame (e.g. 46 bytes for Ethernet v2, 38 bytes for IEEE 802.3), the node MUST generate a PathErr message with the error code "Traffic Control Error" and the error value "Bad Tspec value" (see [RFC2205]). Error processing of the Extended Class-Type object follows rules defined in [MCOS]. Moreover, an LSR receiving a Path message with the Extended Class-Type object, which recognizes the object and the particular Class-Type but does detect a mismatch in the index values, MUST send a PathErr message towards the sender with the error code "Extended Class-Type Error" and the error value "Class-Type mismatch" (see [RFC2205]). 8. Security Considerations This document introduces no new security considerations to either [RFC3473]. GMPLS security is described in section 11 of [RFC3471] and refers to [RFC3209] for RSVP-TE. Further details of MPLS-TE and GMPLS security can be found in [MPLS-SEC]. 9. IANA Considerations IANA maintain registries and sub-registries for RSVP-TE as used by GMPLS. IANA is requested to make allocations from these registries as set out in the following sections. 9.1. RSVP Objects Class Types This document introduces two new Class Types for existing RSVP objects. IANA is requested to make allocations from the "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters" registry using the "Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types" sub-registry. Class Number Class Name Reference ------------ --------------------------------- --------- 9 FLOWSPEC [RFC2205] Class Type (C-Type): 6 Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC [This.I-D] Class Number Class Name Reference ------------ --------------------------------- --------- 12 SENDER_TSPEC [RFC2205] Class Type (C-Type): 6 Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC [This.I-D] 9.2. Ethernet Switching Granularities IANA maintains a registry of GMPLS parameters called "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters". IANA is requested to create a new sub-registry called "Ethernet Switching Granularities" to contain the values that may be carried in the Switching Granularity field of the Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object. Values shall be assigned as follows: 000 Reserved 001-127 IETF Standards Track RFC action 128-255 Vendor Specific Usage Initial entries in this sub-registry are as follows: Value Switching Granularity Reference ----- --------------------- ----------------------------------------------- ---------- 0 Reserved [This.I-D] 1 Ethernet Port (for port-based service) [This.I-D] 2 Ethernet Frame (for EVC-based service) [This.I-D] 9.3. Ethernet Sender TSpec TLVs IANA maintains a registry of GMPLS parameters called "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters". IANA is requested to create a new sub-registry called "Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC TLVs" to contain the TLV type values for TLVs carried in the Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object. Values shall be assigned as follows: 000 Reserved 001-239 IETF Standards Track RFC action 240-254 Vendor Specific Usage 255 Reserved Initial entries in this sub-registry are as follows: Type Description Reference ----- ------------------------------------------- --------- 0 Reserved [This.I-D] 1 Reserved [This.I-D] 2 Ethernet Bandwidth Profile [This.I-D] 3 Layer 2 Control Processing (L2CP) [This.I-D] 255 Reserved [This.I-D] 9.4. Ethernet Bandwidth Profiles IANA maintains a registry of GMPLS parameters called "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters". IANA is requested to create a new sub-registry called "Ethernet Bandwidth Profiles" to contain bit flags carried in the Ethernet Bandwidth Profile TLV of the Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object. Bits are to be allocated by IETF Standards Track RFC action. Bits are numbered from bit 0 as the low order bit. Bit Hex Description Reference --- ---- ----------- ----------------------------------- ------------- 0 0x01 Coupling flag (CF) [This.I-D] 1 0x02 Color mode (CM) [This.I-D] 10. Acknowledgments Many thanks to Adrian Farrel for his comments. Lou Berger provided the input on control traffic processing. 11. References 11.1. Normative References [GMPLS-ESVCS] Berger, L., et al., "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support For Metro Ethernet Forum and G.8011 Ethernet Services", draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs, work in progress. [RFC2205] Braden, R., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S. Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997. [RFC2210] Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated Services", RFC 2210, September 1997. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC3209] 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. [RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, January 2003. [RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. [RFC4124] Le Faucheur et al, "Protocol extensions for support of Diff-Serv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC4124. [RFC4506] Eisler, M., Ed. "XDR: External Data Representation Standard", RFC 4506, STD 67, May 2006. 11.2. Informative References [MEF10.1] The MEF Technical Specification, "Ethernet Services Attributes Phase 2", MEF 10.1, November 2006. [MEF6] The Metro Ethernet Forum, "Ethernet Services Definitions - Phase I", MEF 6, June 2004. [MEF11] The Metro Ethernet Forum, "User Network Interface (UNI) Requirements and Framework", MEF 11, November 2004. [MCOS] Minei, I., et al., "Extensions for Differentiated Services-aware Traffic Engineered LSPs", draft-minei- diffserv-te-multi-class, work in progress. [MPLS-SEC] Fang, L. et al., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks", draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security- framework, work in progress. Author's Addresses Dimitri Papadimitriou Alcatel-Lucent Bell Copernicuslaan 50 B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium Phone: +32 3 2408491 E-mail: email@example.com Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The(c) 2009 IETF Trust (2008). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78,and exceptthe persons identified as set forth therein,the authors retain all their rights. Thisdocument 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, THE IETF TRUST 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 Statement The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or otherauthors. All rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in thisreserved. 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 respectis subject to rights in RFC documents can be found inBCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made tothe IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licensesTrust's Legal Provisions Relating to be made available, orIETF Documents in effect on the resultdate of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or userspublication 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 proprietarydocument (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights that may cover technology that may be requiredand restrictions with respect to implementthis standard. Please address the information to the IETF at firstname.lastname@example.org.