draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-02.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-03.txt 
Internet Draft Don Fedyk, Nortel Internet Draft Don Fedyk, Alcatel-Lucent
Category: Standards Track Himanshu Shah, Ciena Category: Standards Track Himanshu Shah, Force10 Networks
Expiration Date: August 25, 2009 Nabil Bitar, Verizon Expiration Date: April 14, 2010 Nabil Bitar, Verizon
Attila Takacs, Ericsson Attila Takacs, Ericsson
February 25, 2009 October 14, 2009
Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) control of Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) control of
Ethernet PBB-TE Ethernet PBB-TE
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-02.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-03.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may contain material
from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the
does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF
of this memo is unlimited. Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the
IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with BCP 78 and BCP 79. Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to
translate it into languages other than English.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts. Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
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 August 25, 2009. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 14, 2010.
Copyright and License Notice Copyright and License Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
publication of this document. Please review these documents Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with and restrictions with respect to this document.
respect to this document.
Abstract Abstract
This specification is complementary to the GMPLS controlled Ethernet This specification is complementary to the GMPLS Ethernet Label
architecture document [ARCH] and describes the technology specific Switching Architecture and Framework [ARCH] and describes the
aspects of GMPLS control for Provider Backbone Bridge Traffic technology specific aspects of GMPLS control for Provider Backbone
Engineering (PBB-TE) [IEEE 802.1Qay]. The necessary GMPLS extensions Bridge Traffic Engineering (PBB-TE) [IEEE 802.1Qay]. The necessary
and mechanisms are described to establish Ethernet PBB-TE point to GMPLS extensions and mechanisms are described to establish Ethernet
point (P2P) and point to multipoint (P2MP) connections. This document PBB-TE point to point (P2P) and point to multipoint (P2MP)
supports, but does not modify, the standard IEEE data plane. connections. This document supports, but does not modify, the
standard IEEE data plane.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1 Introduction .............................................. 4 1 Introduction ........................................... 4
1.1 Co-authors ................................................ 4 1.1 Co-authors ............................................. 4
2 Terminology ............................................... 5 2 Terminology ............................................ 5
2.1 PBB-TE and GMPLS Terminology .............................. 5 2.1 PBB-TE and GMPLS Terminology ........................... 5
3 Creation and Maintenance of PBB-TE paths using GMPLS ...... 6 3 Creation and Maintenance of PBB-TE paths using GMPLS ... 6
4 Specific Procedures ....................................... 9 3.1 Shared Forwarding ...................................... 9
4.1 P2P Ethernet LSPs ........................................ 9 3.2 P2P connections procedures for shared forwarding ....... 10
4.1.1 Shared Forwarding ......................................... 10 4 Specific Procedures .................................... 10
4.1.2 P2P connections procedures for shared forwarding .......... 11 4.1 P2P Ethernet LSPs ..................................... 10
4.1.3 P2P Path Maintenance ...................................... 11 4.1.1 P2P Path Maintenance ................................... 12
4.2 P2MP Ethernet-LSPs ........................................ 12 4.2 P2MP Ethernet-LSPs ..................................... 12
4.2.1 Maintenance Procedures .................................... 12 4.3 PBB-TE Ethernet Label .................................. 12
4.3 PBB-TE Ethernet Label ..................................... 12 4.4 Protection Paths ....................................... 13
4.4 Protection Paths .......................................... 13 4.5 Service Instance Identification ....................... 13
4.5 Service Instance Identification .......................... 13 5 Error conditions ....................................... 15
5 Error conditions .......................................... 15 5.1 ESP-VID related errors ............................... 15
5.1 Invalid ESP-VID value for PBB-TE ......................... 15 5.1.1 Invalid ESP-VID value in the PBB-TE Ethernet Label .... 15
5.2 Invalid MAC Address ....................................... 15 5.1.2 Allocated ESP-VID range is exhausted .................. 15
5.3 Switch is not ESP P2MP capable ............................ 15 5.2 Invalid MAC Address .................................... 15
6 Security Considerations ................................... 15 6 Security Considerations ................................ 16
7 IANA Considerations ....................................... 16 7 IANA Considerations .................................... 16
7.1 Error Codes ............................................... 16 8 References ............................................. 16
8 References ................................................ 16 8.1 Normative References ................................... 16
8.1 Normative References ...................................... 16 8.2 Informative References ................................. 17
8.2 Informative References .................................... 16 9 Acknowledgments ........................................ 18
9 Acknowledgments ........................................... 17 10 Author's Address ....................................... 18
10 Author's Address .......................................... 17
Conventions used in this document Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL"
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The IEEE 802.1 Provider Backbone Bridge Traffic Engineering (PBB-TE) The IEEE 802.1 Provider Backbone Bridge Traffic Engineering (PBB-TE)
[IEEE 802.1Qay] standard supports the establishment of explicitly [IEEE 802.1Qay] standard supports the establishment of explicitly
routed traffic engineered paths within Provider Backbone Bridged routed traffic engineered paths within Provider Backbone Bridged
(PBB) networks. PBB-TE allows disabling: the Spanning Tree Protocol, (PBB) networks. PBB-TE allows disabling: the Spanning Tree Protocol,
unknown destination address forwarding and source address learning unknown destination address forwarding and source address learning
for administratively selected VLAN Identifiers. With PBB-TE an for administratively selected VLAN Identifiers. With PBB-TE an
external provisioning system or control plane can be used to external provisioning system or control plane can be used to
configure static entries in the managed objects of bridges and so configure static entries in the managed objects of bridges and so
establish traffic engineered paths in the network. establish traffic engineered paths in the network.
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) [RFC3945] is a family of control plane Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) [RFC3945] is a family of control plane
protocols designed to operate in connection oriented and traffic protocols designed to operate in connection oriented and traffic
engineering transport networks. GMPLS is applicable to a range of engineering transport networks. GMPLS is applicable to a range of
network technologies including Layer 2 Switching capable networks network technologies including Layer 2 Switching capable networks
(L2SC). The purpose of this document is to specify extensions for a (L2SC). The purpose of this document is to specify extensions for a
GMPLS based control plane to manage PBB-TE explicitly routed traffic GMPLS based control plane to manage PBB-TE explicitly routed traffic
engineered paths. This draft is complementary to with the GMPLS engineered paths. This specification is complementary to with the
Ethernet Label Switching Architecture and Framework [ARCH]. GMPLS Ethernet Label Switching Architecture and Framework [ARCH]
document.
1.1. Co-authors 1.1. Co-authors
This document is the result the a large team of authors and This document is the result of a large team of authors and
contributors. The following is a list of the co-authors: contributors. The following is a list of the co-authors:
Don Fedyk (Nortel) Don Fedyk (Alcatel-Lucent)
David Allan (Nortel) David Allan (Ericsson)
Himanshu Shah (Ciena) Himanshu Shah (Force10 Networks)
Nabil Bitar (Verizon) Nabil Bitar (Verizon)
Attila Takacs (Ericsson) Attila Takacs (Ericsson)
Diego Caviglia (Ericsson) Diego Caviglia (Ericsson)
Alan McGuire (BT) Alan McGuire (BT)
Nurit Sprecher (Nokia Siemens Networks) Nurit Sprecher (Nokia Siemens Networks)
Lou Berger (LabN) Lou Berger (LabN)
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
In addition to well understood GMPLS terms, this memo uses In addition to well understood GMPLS terms, this memo uses
skipping to change at page 5, line 21 skipping to change at page 5, line 21
- BEB Backbone Edge Bridge - BEB Backbone Edge Bridge
- B-MAC Backbone MAC - B-MAC Backbone MAC
- B-VID Backbone VLAN ID - B-VID Backbone VLAN ID
- B-VLAN Backbone VLAN - B-VLAN Backbone VLAN
- CBP Customer Backbone Port - CBP Customer Backbone Port
- CCM Continuity Check Message - CCM Continuity Check Message
- CNP Customer Network Port - CNP Customer Network Port
- C-MAC Customer MAC - C-MAC Customer MAC
- C-VID Customer VLAN ID - C-VID Customer VLAN ID
- C-VLAN Customer VLAN - C-VLAN Customer VLAN
- DMAC Destination MAC Address
- ESP Ethernet Switched Path - ESP Ethernet Switched Path
- ESP-MAC SA ESP Source MAC Address - ESP-MAC SA ESP Source MAC Address
- ESP-MAC DA ESP Destination MAC Address - ESP-MAC DA ESP Destination MAC Address
- ESP-VID ESP VLAN ID - ESP-VID ESP VLAN ID
- Eth-LSP Ethernet Label Switched Path - Eth-LSP Ethernet Label Switched Path
- IB-BEB A BEB comprising of both I and B components - IB-BEB A BEB comprising of both I and B components
- I-SID Ethernet Service Instance Identifier - I-SID Ethernet Service Instance Identifier
- MAC Media Access Control - MAC Media Access Control
- MMAC Multicast or Group MAC address
- PBB Provider Backbone Bridges - PBB Provider Backbone Bridges
- PBB-TE Provider Backbone Bridges Traffic Engineering - PBB-TE Provider Backbone Bridges Traffic Engineering
- PIP Provider Instance Port - PIP Provider Instance Port
- PNP Provider Network Port - PNP Provider Network Port
- P2P Point to Point - P2P Point to Point
- P2MP Point to Multipoint - P2MP Point to Multipoint
- SVL Shared VLAN Learning - SVL Shared VLAN Learning
- TESI TE Service Instance - TESI TE Service Instance
- VID VLAN ID - VID VLAN ID
- VLAN Virtual LAN - VLAN Virtual LAN
skipping to change at page 6, line 32 skipping to change at page 6, line 30
ESPs' endpoints have the same CBP MAC addresses. The two ESPs' endpoints have the same CBP MAC addresses. The two
unidirectional ESP are forming a bidirectional service. The PBB- unidirectional ESP are forming a bidirectional service. The PBB-
TE standard [IEEE 802.1Qay] notes the following: for reasons TE standard [IEEE 802.1Qay] notes the following: for reasons
relating to TE service monitoring diagnostics, operational relating to TE service monitoring diagnostics, operational
simplicity, etc. the IEEE PBB-TE standard assumes that the point- simplicity, etc. the IEEE PBB-TE standard assumes that the point-
to-point ESPs associated with a point-to-point TESI are co- to-point ESPs associated with a point-to-point TESI are co-
routed. Support for a point-to-point TE services which comprises routed. Support for a point-to-point TE services which comprises
non co-routed ESPs is problematic, and is not defined in this non co-routed ESPs is problematic, and is not defined in this
standard. Hence, a GMPLS bidirectional LSP is analogous to a P2P standard. Hence, a GMPLS bidirectional LSP is analogous to a P2P
TE Service instance. We use the term bidirectional Ethernet-LSP TE Service instance. We use the term bidirectional Ethernet-LSP
(Eth-LSP) for GMPLS established P2P PBB-TE Service instances. for GMPLS established P2P PBB-TE Service instances.
3. Creation and Maintenance of PBB-TE paths using GMPLS 3. Creation and Maintenance of PBB-TE paths using GMPLS
IEEE PBB-TE is a connection oriented Ethernet technology. PBB-TE ESPs IEEE PBB-TE is a connection oriented Ethernet technology. PBB-TE ESPs
are created switch by switch by simple configuration of Ethernet are created switch by switch by simple configuration of Ethernet
forwarding entries. This document describes the use of GMPLS as a forwarding entries. This document describes the use of GMPLS as a
valid control plane for the set-up, teardown, protection and valid control plane for the set-up, teardown, protection and
recovery of ESPs and TESIs and specifies the required RSVP-TE recovery of ESPs and TESIs and specifies the required RSVP-TE
extensions for the control of PBB-TE service instances. extensions for the control of PBB-TE service instances.
skipping to change at page 7, line 18 skipping to change at page 7, line 16
and use the MAC address of that port. The I-Component encapsulates and use the MAC address of that port. The I-Component encapsulates
the service frames arriving from the CNP by adding an I-SID and a the service frames arriving from the CNP by adding an I-SID and a
complete Ethernet MAC header with an ESP-MAC DA and ESP-MAC SA. The complete Ethernet MAC header with an ESP-MAC DA and ESP-MAC SA. The
B-Component adds the ESP-VID. B-Component adds the ESP-VID.
GMPLS is being defined here to establish ESPs and TESIs. As it can be GMPLS is being defined here to establish ESPs and TESIs. As it can be
seen from the above this requires configuration of both the I and B seen from the above this requires configuration of both the I and B
components of the IB-BEBs connected by the ESPs. components of the IB-BEBs connected by the ESPs.
In the GMPLS control plane TE Router IDs are used to identify the IB- In the GMPLS control plane TE Router IDs are used to identify the IB-
BEBs and Backbone Core Bridges (BCBs), and TE Links that describes BEBs and Backbone Core Bridges (BCBs), and TE Links describe links
links connected to PNPs and CNPs. TE Links are not associated with connected to PNPs and CNPs. TE Links are not associated with CBPs or
CBPs or PIPs. PIPs.
Note that since multiple internal CBPs may exit an IB-BEB receiving a Note that since multiple internal CBPs may exist an IB-BEB receiving
PATH message must be able to determine the appropriate CBP that is a PATH message MUST be able to determine the appropriate CBP that is
the termination point of the ESP. To this end, IB-BEBs SHOULD the termination point of the Eth-LSP. To this end, IB-BEBs SHOULD
advertises the CNP TE Links in the GMPLS control plane and RSVP-TE advertise the CNP TE Links in the GMPLS control plane and RSVP-TE
signaling SHOULD use the CNP TE Links to identify the termination signaling SHOULD use the CNP TE Links to identify the termination
point of Eth-LSPs. An IB-BEB receiving a PATH message specifying one point of Eth-LSPs. An IB-BEB receiving a PATH message specifying one
of its CNPs can locally determine which CBPs have internal of its CNPs can locally determine which CBPs have internal
connectivity to the I-component supporting the given CNP. In the case connectivity to the I-component supporting the given CNP. In the case
there are more than one suitable CBPs, and no I-SID information is there are more than one suitable CBPs, and no I-SID information is
provided in the PATH message or previously in the associated Call provided in the PATH message or previously in the associated Call
setup, then the IB-BEB can decide freely which CBP to assign to the setup, then the IB-BEB can decide freely which CBP to assign to the
requested connection. On the other hand, if there is information on requested connection. On the other hand, if there is information on
the service (I-SID) that the given ESP will support, then the IB-BEB the service (I-SID) that the given ESP will support, then the IB-BEB
MUST first determine which PIP and CBP is configured with the I-SID MUST first determine which PIP and CBP is configured with the I-SID
skipping to change at page 8, line 32 skipping to change at page 8, line 32
^--------Configured--------------^ ^--------Configured--------------^
^-----------GMPLS or Configured------^ ^-----------GMPLS or Configured------^
Figure 1 IB-BEBs and GMPLS identifiers Figure 1 IB-BEBs and GMPLS identifiers
Control TE Router ID TE Router ID Control TE Router ID TE Router ID
Plane | (TE Link) | Plane | (TE Link) |
V | V V | V
+----+ | +-----+ +----+ | +-----+
Data | | | label=ESP:VID/MAC DA | | Data | | | | |
Plane | | V label=ESP:VID/MMAC | | Plane | | V label=ESP:VID/MAC DA | |
-----N N----------------------------N N---------- -----N N----------------------------N N----------
| | PBB-TE | | \ Network | | PBB-TE | | \ Network
| | / | Or | | / | Or
+----+ /+-----+ Customer +----+ /+-----+ Customer
BCB ESP:MAC IB-BEB Facing BCB ESP:MAC IB-BEB Facing
Ethernet Ethernet
Ports Ports
Figure 2 Ethernet/GMPLS Addressing & Label Space Figure 2 Ethernet/GMPLS Addressing & Label Space
PBB-TE defines the tuple of <ESP-MAC DA, ESP-MAC SA, ESP-VID> as a PBB-TE defines the tuple of <ESP-MAC DA, ESP-MAC SA, ESP-VID> as a
unique connection identifier in the data plane but the forwarding unique connection identifier in the data plane but the forwarding
operation only uses the ESP-MAC DA and the ESP-VID in each direction. operation only uses the ESP-MAC DA and the ESP-VID in each direction.
The ESP-VID typically comes from a small number of VIDs dedicated to The ESP-VID typically comes from a small number of VIDs dedicated to
PBB-TE. ESP-VIDs can be reused across ESPs. There is no requirement PBB-TE. ESP-VIDs can be reused across ESPs. There is no requirement
that ESP-VIDs for two ESPs that form a P2P TESI be the same. that ESP-VIDs for two ESPs that form a P2P TESI be the same.
When configuring a ESP with GMPLS, the ESP-MAC DA and ESP-VID are When configuring an ESP with GMPLS, the ESP-MAC DA and ESP-VID are
carried in a generalized label object and are assigned hop by hop but carried in a generalized label object and are assigned hop by hop but
are invariant within a domain. This invariance is similar to GMPLS are invariant within a domain. This invariance is similar to GMPLS
operation in transparent optical networks. As is typical with other operation in transparent optical networks. As is typical with other
technologies controlled by GMPLS, the data plane receiver must technologies controlled by GMPLS, the data plane receiver MUST
accept, and usually assigns, labels from its available label pool. accept, and usually assigns, labels from its available label pool.
This, together with the label invariance requirement mentioned above, This, together with the label invariance requirement mentioned above,
result in each PBB-TE Ethernet Label being a domain wide unique result in each PBB-TE Ethernet Label being a domain wide unique
label, with a unique ESP-VID + ESP-MAC DA, for each direction. label, with a unique ESP-VID + ESP-MAC DA, for each direction.
The following illustrates PBB-TE Ethernet Labels and ESPs for a P2P The following illustrates PBB-TE Ethernet Labels and ESPs for a P2P
TESI. TESI.
GMPLS Upstream Label <ESP:MAC1(DA), VID1> (60 bits) GMPLS Upstream Label <ESP:MAC1(DA), VID1> (60 bits)
GMPLS Downstream Label <ESP:MAC2(DA), VID2> (60 bits) GMPLS Downstream Label <ESP:MAC2(DA), VID2> (60 bits)
Upstream PBB-TE ESP 3-tuple <ESP:MAC1, MAC2, VID1> (108 bits) Upstream PBB-TE ESP 3-tuple <ESP:MAC1, MAC2, VID1> (108 bits)
Downstream PBB-TE ESP 3-tuple <ESP:MAC2, MAC1, VID2> (108 bits) Downstream PBB-TE ESP 3-tuple <ESP:MAC2, MAC1, VID2> (108 bits)
Table 1 Labels and ESPs Table 1 Labels and ESPs
4. Specific Procedures 3.1. Shared Forwarding
4.1. P2P Ethernet LSPs
Note, PBB-TE is designed to be bidirectional and symmetrically routed
just like Ethernet. That is, complete and proper functionality of
Ethernet protocols is only guaranteed for bidirectional Eth-LSPs.
To initiate a bidirectional Eth-LSP, the initiator of the PATH
message uses procedures outlined in [RFC3473], it:
1) Sets the LSP encoding type to Ethernet.
2) Sets the LSP switching type to 802_1 PBB-TE suggested value 40
[IANA to define].
3) Sets the GPID to service type.
4) Sets the UPSTREAM_LABEL to the ESP-VID1/ESP-MAC1 tuple where the
ESP-VID1 is administered locally for the local MAC address: MAC1
5) Optionally sets the LABEL_SET or SUGGESTED_LABEL if it chooses to
influence the choice of ESP-VID/ESP-MAC DA.
6) Optionally look at Call / Connection ID for Carrying I-SID.
Intermediate and egress switch processing is not modified by this
document, i.e., is per [RFC3473]. Note, as previously stated
intermediate bridges supporting the 802_1 PBB-TE switching type MUST
NOT modify LABEL values.
The ESP-VID1/ESP-MAC1 tuple contained in the UPSTREAM_LABEL is used
to create a static forwarding entry in the Filtering Database of
bridges at each hop for the upstream direction. This behavior is
inferred from the switching type which is 802_1 PBB-TE. The port
derived from the RSVP_HOP object and the ESP-VID1 and ESP- MAC1
included in the PBB-TE Ethernet Label constitute the static entry.
At the destination, an ESP-VID2 is allocated for the local MAC
address: MAC2, the ESP-VID2/ESP-MAC2 tuple is passed in the LABEL
object in the RESV message. As with the PATH message, intermediate
switch processing is per [RFC3473], and the LABEL object is passed on
unchanged, upstream. The ESP-VID2/ESP-MAC2 tuple contained in the
LABEL Object is installed in the forwarding table as a static
forwarding entry at each hop. This creates a bidirectional path as
the PATH and RESV messages follow the same path.
4.1.1. Shared Forwarding
One capability of a connectionless Ethernet data plane is to reuse One capability of a connectionless Ethernet data plane is to reuse
destination forwarding entries for packets from any source within a destination forwarding entries for packets from any source within a
VLAN to a destination. When setting up P2P PBB-TE connections for VLAN to a destination. When setting up P2P PBB-TE connections for
multiple sources sharing a common destination this capability MAY be multiple sources sharing a common destination this capability MAY be
preserved provided certain requirements are met. We refer to this preserved provided certain requirements are met. We refer to this
capability as Shared Forwarding. Shared forwarding is invoked based capability as Shared Forwarding. Shared forwarding is invoked based
on policy when conditions are met. It is a local decision by label on policy when conditions are met. It is a local decision by label
allocation at each end plus the path constraints. Shared forwarding allocation at each end plus the path constraints. Shared forwarding
has no impact on the actual paths setup, but it allows the reduction has no impact on the actual paths that are setup, but it allows the
of forwarding entries. Shared forwarding paths are identical in reduction of forwarding entries. Shared forwarding paths are
function to independently routed paths that share a path from an identical in function to independently routed paths that share a path
intersecting switch or link except they share a single forwarding from an intersecting switch or link except they share a single
entry. forwarding entry.
Share forwarding savings can be quite dramatic in some topologies The forwarding memory savings from shared forwarding can be quite
where a high degree of meshing is required however it is typically dramatic in some topologies where a high degree of meshing is
easier to achieve when the connectivity is know in advance. Normally required however it is typically easier to achieve when the
the originating GMPLS switch will not have knowledge of the set of connectivity is known in advance. Normally the originating GMPLS
shared forwarding paths rooted on the source or destination switch. switch will not have knowledge of the set of shared forwarding paths
rooted on the source or destination switch.
Use of a Path Computation Server [PATHCOMP] or other planning style Use of a Path Computation Server [PATHCOMP] or other planning style
of tool with more complete knowledge of the network configuration is of tool with more complete knowledge of the network configuration is
a way to impose pre-selection of shared forwarding multiplexes to use a way to impose pre-selection of shared forwarding with multiple
for both directions. In this scenario the originating switch uses paths using a single forwarding entry and optimizing for both
the LABEL_SET and UPSTREAM_LABEL objects to indicate selection of the directions. In this scenario the originating switch uses the
shared forwarding multiplexes at both ends. LABEL_SET and UPSTREAM_LABEL objects to indicate selection of the
shared forwarding labels at both ends.
4.1.2. P2P connections procedures for shared forwarding 3.2. P2P connections procedures for shared forwarding
The ESP-VID/ESP-MAC DA MAY be considered to be a shared forwarding The ESP-VID/ESP-MAC DA can be considered to be a shared forwarding
identifier or label for a multiplex consisting of some number of P2P identifier or label consisting of some number of P2P connections
connections distinctly identified by the MAC ESP-VID/ESP-MAC DA/ESP- distinctly identified by the MAC ESP-VID/ESP-MAC DA/ESP- MAC SA
MAC SA tuple. This is analogous to an LDP label merge but in the tuple. This is analogous to an LDP label merge but in the shared
shared forwarding case the original ESP header still identifies the forwarding case the original ESP header still identifies the complete
complete path. Resources can continue to be allocated per LSP with path. Resources can continue to be allocated per LSP with Shared
Shared forwarding. forwarding.
VLAN tagged Ethernet packets include priority marking. Priority bits VLAN tagged Ethernet packets include priority marking. Priority bits
MAY be used to indicate class of Service (COS) and drop priority. MAY be used to indicate class of Service (COS) and drop priority.
Thus, traffic from multiple COSs could be multiplexed on the same Thus, traffic from multiple COSs could be multiplexed on the same
Eth-LSP (i.e., similar to E-LSPs) and queuing and drop decisions are Eth-LSP (i.e., similar to E-LSPs) and queuing and drop decisions are
made based on the p-bits. This means that the queue selection can be made based on the p-bits. This means that the queue selection can be
done based on a per flow (i.e., Eth-LSP + priority) basis and is done based on a per flow (i.e., Eth-LSP + priority) basis and is
decoupled from the actual steering of the packet at any given switch. decoupled from the actual steering of the packet at any given switch.
A switch terminating an Eth-LSP will frequently have more than one A switch terminating an Eth-LSP will frequently have more than one
skipping to change at page 11, line 38 skipping to change at page 10, line 39
shared forwarding. shared forwarding.
The concept of bandwidth management still applies equally well with The concept of bandwidth management still applies equally well with
shared forwarding. As an example consider a PBB-TE edge switch that shared forwarding. As an example consider a PBB-TE edge switch that
terminates an Ethernet LSP with the following attributes: bandwidth terminates an Ethernet LSP with the following attributes: bandwidth
B1, ESP-MAC DA D, ESP-MAC SA S1, ESP-VID V. A request to establish an B1, ESP-MAC DA D, ESP-MAC SA S1, ESP-VID V. A request to establish an
additional Ethernet LSP with attributes (bandwidth B2, ESP-MAC DA D, additional Ethernet LSP with attributes (bandwidth B2, ESP-MAC DA D,
ESP-MAC SA S2, ESP-VID V) can be accepted provided there is ESP-MAC SA S2, ESP-VID V) can be accepted provided there is
sufficient link capacity remaining. sufficient link capacity remaining.
4.1.3. P2P Path Maintenance 4. Specific Procedures
4.1. P2P Ethernet LSPs
Note, PBB-TE is designed to be bidirectional and symmetrically routed
just like Ethernet. That is, complete and proper functionality of
Ethernet protocols is only guaranteed for bidirectional Eth-LSPs. In
the following we discuss the establishment of bidirectional Eth-LSPs.
Note however that it is also possible to use RSVP-TE to configure
unidirectional ESPs, if the UPSTREAM_LABEL is not included in the
PATH message. To initiate a bidirectional Eth-LSP, the initiator
of the PATH message MUST use the procedures outlined in [RFC3473]
with the following specifics:
1) MUST set the LSP encoding type to Ethernet (2) [RFC3471].
2) MUST set the LSP switching type to 802_1 PBB-TE suggested value 40
IANA to define, assigned by this document].
3) SHOULD set the GPID to Ethernet (33) [RFC3471].
4) MUST set the UPSTREAM_LABEL to the ESP-VID1/ESP-MAC1 tuple where
the
ESP-VID1 is administered locally for the local MAC address: MAC1
5) SHOULD set the LABEL_SET or SUGGESTED_LABEL if it chooses to
influence the choice of ESP-VID/ESP-MAC DA.
6) SHOULD look at Call / Connection ID for Carrying I-SID.
Intermediate and egress switch processing is not modified by this
document, i.e., is per [RFC3473]. However, as previously stated
intermediate bridges supporting the 802_1 PBB-TE switching type MUST
NOT modify LABEL values.
The ESP-VID1/ESP-MAC1 tuple contained in the UPSTREAM_LABEL are used
to create a static forwarding entry in the Filtering Database of
bridges at each hop for the upstream direction. This behavior is
inferred from the switching type which is 802_1 PBB-TE. The port
derived from the RSVP_HOP object and the ESP-VID1 and ESP-MAC1
included in the PBB-TE Ethernet Label constitute the static entry.
At the destination, an ESP-VID (ESP-VID2) is allocated for the local
MAC address: MAC2, the ESP-VID2/ESP-MAC2 tuple is passed in the LABEL
object in the RESV message. As with the PATH message, intermediate
switch processing is per [RFC3473], and the LABEL object MUST be
passed on unchanged, upstream. The ESP-VID2/ESP-MAC2 tuple contained
in the LABEL Object is installed in the forwarding table as a static
forwarding entry at each hop. This creates a bidirectional Eth-LSP as
the PATH and RESV messages follow the same path.
4.1.1. P2P Path Maintenance
Make before break procedures can be employed to modify the Make before break procedures can be employed to modify the
characteristics of a P2P Eth LSP. As described in [RFC3209], the LSP characteristics of a P2P Eth LSP. As described in [RFC3209], the LSP
ID in the sender template is updated as the new path is signaled. The ID in the sender template is updated as the new path is signaled. The
procedures (including those for shared forwarding) are identical to procedures (including those for shared forwarding) are identical to
those employed in establishing a new LSP, with the extended tunnel ID those employed in establishing a new LSP, with the extended tunnel ID
in the signaling exchange ensuring that double booking of the in the signaling exchange ensuring that double booking of an
associated resources does not occur. associated resource does not occur.
Where individual paths in a protection group are modified, signaling Where individual paths in a protection group are modified, signaling
procedures may be combined with Protection Switching (PS) procedures MAY be combined with Protection Switching (PS)
coordination to administratively force PS switching operations such coordination to administratively force PS switching operations such
that modifications are only ever performed on the protection path. that modification is only ever performed on the protection path.
4.2. P2MP Ethernet-LSPs 4.2. P2MP Ethernet-LSPs
PBB-TE supports P2MP VID/Multicast MAC (MMAC) forwarding. In P2MP PBB-TE supports P2MP VID/Multicast MAC (MMAC) forwarding. In this
the whole tree in the forward direction has the same destination MMAC case the PBB-TE Ethernet Label consists of a VID and a Group MAC
ESP-MAC-DA. address. The procedures outlined in [RFC3473] and [RFC4875]could be
adapted to signal P2MP LSPs for the source (point) to destination
The procedures outlined in [RFC3473] and [RFC4875]could be adapted to (multipoint) direction. Each one of the branches of the P2MP Eth-LSP
signal P2MP LSPs for the source (point) to destination (multipoint) would be associated with a reverse path symmetric and congruent P2P
direction. Each one of the branches of the P2MP Eth-LSP would be Eth-LSP.
associated with a reverse path symmetric and congruent P2P Eth-LSP.
Complete procedures for signaling bidirectional P2MP are out of scope Complete procedures for signaling bidirectional P2MP are out of scope
for this document. for this document.
4.2.1. Maintenance Procedures
Maintenance and modification to a P2MP tree can be achieved by a
number of means. The preferred technique is to modify existing VLAN
configuration vs. assignment of a new label and completely
constructing a new tree.
Make before break on a live tree reusing existing label assignments
requires a 1:1 or 1+1 construct. The protection switch state of the
traffic is forced on the working tree and locked (PS not allowed)
while the backup tree is modified. Explicit path tear of leaves to be
modified is required to ensure no loops are left behind as artifacts
of tree modification. Once modifications are complete, a forced
switch to the backup tree occurs and the original tree may be
similarly modified. This also suggests that 1+1 or 1:1 resilience can
be achieved for P2MP trees for any single failure (switch on any
failure and use restoration techniques to repair the failed tree).
4.3. PBB-TE Ethernet Label 4.3. PBB-TE Ethernet Label
The PBB-TE Ethernet Label is a new generalized label with the The PBB-TE Ethernet Label is a new generalized label with the
following format: following format:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 0| ESP VID | ESP MAC (highest 2 bytes) | |0 0 0 0| ESP VID | ESP MAC (highest 2 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ESP MAC | | ESP MAC |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3 PBB-TE Ethernet Label Figure 3 PBB-TE Ethernet Label
This format is used to carry for both P2P and P2MP Eth-LSPs. For P2P This format MUST be used for both P2P and P2MP Eth-LSPs. For P2P Eth-
Eth-LSPs labels the fields specify a VID and a unicast MAC address, LSPs the fields specify a VID and a unicast MAC address, while for
while for P2MP Eth-LSPs a VID and a group MAC address is carried in P2MP Eth-LSPs a VID and a group MAC address is carried in the label.
the label. The PBB-TE Ethernet Label is a domain wide unique label The PBB-TE Ethernet Label is a domain wide unique label and MUST be
and MUST be passed unchanged at each hop. This has similarity to the passed unchanged at each hop. This has similarity to the way in which
way in which a wavelength label is handled at an intermediate switch a wavelength label is handled at an intermediate switch that cannot
that cannot perform wavelength conversion, and is described in perform wavelength conversion, and is described in [RFC3473].
[RFC3473].
4.4. Protection Paths 4.4. Protection Paths
When protection is used for path recovery it is required to associate When protection is used for path recovery it is required to associate
the working and protection paths into a protection group. This is the working and protection paths into a protection group. This is
achieved as defined in [RFC4872] and [RFC4873] using the ASSOCIATION achieved as defined in [RFC4872] and [RFC4873] using the ASSOCIATION
and PROTECTION objects. and PROTECTION objects.
4.5. Service Instance Identification 4.5. Service Instance Identification
The I-SID is used to uniquely identify services within the network. The I-SID is used to uniquely identify services within the network.
Unambiguous identification is achieved by ensuring global uniqueness Unambiguous identification is achieved by ensuring global uniqueness
of the I-SIDs within the network or at least between any pair of edge of the I-SIDs within the network or at least between any pair of edge
switches. On IB-BEBs the Backbone Service Instance Table is used to switches. On IB-BEBs the Backbone Service Instance Table is used to
configure the mapping between I-SIDs and ESPs. This configuration can configure the mapping between I-SIDs and ESPs. This configuration can
be either manual or semi-automated by signaling described here. be either manual or semi-automated by signaling described here.
RSVP-TE signaling can be used to automate I-SID to ESP mapping. By RSVP-TE signaling MAY be used to automate I-SID to ESP mapping. By
relying on signaling it is ensured that the same I-SID is assigned to relying on signaling it is ensured that the same I-SID is assigned to
the service and mapped to the same ESP. Note, by signaling the I-SID the service and mapped to the same ESP. Note, by signaling the I-SID
associated to the ESP one can ensure that IB-BEBs select the associated to the ESP one can ensure that IB-BEBs select the
appropriate CBP port. appropriate CBP port.
The CALL signaling [RFC4974] can be used to create the I-SID The CALL signaling [RFC4974] can be used to create the I-SID
association between the endpoints prior to Eth-LSP establishment. association between the endpoints prior to Eth-LSP establishment.
Alternatively, the PATH messages can carry the I-SID association at Alternatively, the PATH messages can carry the I-SID association at
the time of Eth-LSP signaling. Therefore it is possible to create I- the time of Eth-LSP signaling. Therefore it is possible to create I-
SID association either when the path is set up or at a later time. SID association either when the path is set up or at a later time.
A new Service ID TLV is defined for the CALL_ATTRIBUTES object. The A new Service ID TLV is defined for the CALL_ATTRIBUTES and
format is depicted below. LSP_ATTRIBUTES objects. The format is depicted below.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (TBA) | Length (variable) | | Type (TBA) | Length (variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Flags | | Reserved | Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| I-SID Set 1 | | I-SID Set 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: : : : : :
: : : : : :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| I-SID Set n | | I-SID Set n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4 Service ID TLV Figure 4 Service ID TLV
- Flags: are used to control properties of service configuration. - Flags: are used to control properties of service configuration.
This document does not define flags. This document does not define flags.
- I-SID Set TLV: is used to define a list or range of I-SIDs. - I-SID Set TLV(Type 1): is used to define a list or range of I-
Multiple I-SID Set TLVs can be present. At least one I-SID Set SIDs. Multiple I-SID Set TLVs can be present. At least one I-SID
TLV MUST be present. In most of the cases a single I-SID Set with Set TLV MUST be present. In most of the cases a single I-SID Set
a single I-SID value is used. The I-SID Set TLV is used to define with a single I-SID value is used. The I-SID Set TLV is used to
a list or range of I-SIDs. The format of the I-SID Set TLV is define a list or range of I-SIDs. The format of the I-SID Set TLV
based on the LABEL_SET Object: is based on the LABEL_SET Object:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Action | Reserved | | Action | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | I-SID 1 | | Reserved | I-SID 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: : : : : :
: : : : : :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 15, line 4 skipping to change at page 14, line 46
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: : : : : :
: : : : : :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | I-SID n | | Reserved | I-SID n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5 I-SID Set TLV Figure 5 I-SID Set TLV
- Action: 8 bits - Action: 8 bits
The following actions are defined: list (0), range (1). The following actions are defined: list (0), range (1).
- I-SID: 24 bits - I-SID: 24 bits
The I-SID value identifies a particular backbone service The I-SID value identifies a particular backbone service
instance. instance.
5. Error conditions 5. Error conditions
The following errors are possible. They are extension of some base The following errors identify Eth-LSP specific problems.
error types that arise due to the constraints on the label.
5.1. Invalid ESP-VID value for PBB-TE 5.1. ESP-VID related errors
The originator of the error is not configured to use the ESP-VID The network operator administratively selects a
value for PBB-TE in conjunction with GMPLS signaling of <ESP: VID, set of VLAN Identifiers that can be used to setup ESPs.
MAC DA > tuples. This may be originated by any switch along the path. Consequently, any VID outside the allocated range is invalid and an
error MUST be generated where the mismatch is discovered.
Note this is a refinement of the more general Unacceptable label 5.1.1. Invalid ESP-VID value in the PBB-TE Ethernet Label
value Error code.
5.2. Invalid MAC Address If a bridge is not configured to use the ESP-VID value, carried in
the Label object, for PBB-TE ESPs, it MUST immediately generate an
error: Routing problem (24) / Unacceptable label value (6). Handling
of this error is according to [RFC3209].
The MAC address is out of a reserved range that cannot be used by the Note, this error may be originated by any switch along the path.
switch which is processing the address. While almost all MAC
addresses are valid there are a small number of IEEE reserved MAC
addresses.
Note this is a refinement of the more general Unacceptable label 5.1.2. Allocated ESP-VID range is exhausted
value Error code.
5.3. Switch is not ESP P2MP capable The destination bridge after receiving the PATH message has to
allocate a VID, which together with its MAC address will constitute
the PBB-TE Ethernet Label. Depending on the size of the allocated
VLAN range and the number of Eth-LSPs terminated on a particular
bridge, it is possible that the available VIDs are exhausted and
hence no PBB-TE Ethernet Label can be allocated. In this case the
destination bridge SHOULD generate a PathErr message with error code:
Routing problem (24) and error value: PBB-TE Ethernet Label VID
allocation failure (35?) [the new error sub-code to be allocated by
IANA]
This error may arise only in P2MP Tree allocation. 5.2. Invalid MAC Address
IEEE defines a set of reserved MAC addresses that have special
meaning, processing and follow specific forwarding rules. These
addresses cannot be used for PBB-TE ESPs. In the case the PBB-TE
Ethernet Label refers to such a MAC address, a bridge encountering
the mismatch MUST immediately generate an error: Routing problem (24)
/ Unacceptable label value (6). Handling of this error is according
to [RFC3209].
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
The architecture assumes that the GMPLS controlled Ethernet subnet This document does not introduces new security issues; the
consists of trusted devices and that the UNI ports or in this case considerations in [RFC4872] and [RFC4873] apply.
BEB Ethernet UNI Ports to the domain are untrusted. Care is required
to ensure untrusted access to the trusted domain does not occur. The GMPLS controlled Ethernet subnet consists of trusted devices and
Where GMPLS is applied to the control of VLAN only, the commonly that the UNI ports or in this case BEB Ethernet UNI Ports to the
known techniques for mitigation of Ethernet DOS attacks may be domain are untrusted. Care is required to ensure untrusted access to
required on UNI ports. the trusted domain does not occur. Where GMPLS is applied to the
control of VLAN only, the commonly known techniques for mitigation of
Ethernet DOS attacks may be required on UNI ports. PBB-TE has been
designed to interwork with legacy VLANs and the VLANs provide
isolation from Ethernet legacy control planes.
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
New values are required for signaling and error codes as indicated - Assign a new Switching Type: "802_1 PBB-TE" (suggested value 40)
IANA to define. Value are needed for: in the GMPLS Signaling Parameters / Switching Types registry.
- Switching type: 802_1 PBB-TE suggested value 40. - Assign a new globally defined error value: "PBB-TE Ethernet Label
VID allocation failure" (suggested value: 35?) under the
"Routing problem" (24) error code in the RSVP Parameters / Error
Codes and Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes registry.
7.1. Error Codes - Assign a new type from the Attributes TLV Space in the RSVP-TE
Parameters registry (suggested value 2) for the Service ID TLV
that is carried in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object (class = 197, C-Type
= 1) [RFC5420].
- Invalid ESP-VID value for PBB-TE - Assign a new type (suggested value 2) for the Service ID TLV that
- Invalid MAC Address is carried in the CALL_ATTRIBUTES Object (class = 201, C-Type =
- Switch is not ESP P2MP capable 1) [MLN-EXT].
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[ARCH] Fedyk, D. Berger, L., Andersson L., "GMPLS Ethernet Label [ARCH] Fedyk, D. Berger, L., Andersson L., "GMPLS Ethernet Label
Switching Architecture and Framework", work in progress. Switching Architecture and Framework", work in progress.
[RFC3471] Berger, L. et.al., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description" IETF RFC 3471,
January 2003.
[RFC3473] Berger, L. et.al., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label [RFC3473] Berger, L. et.al., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", IETF RFC 3473, January 2003. Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", IETF RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC3945] Mannie, E. et.al., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label [RFC3945] Mannie, E. et.al., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", IETF RFC 3945, October 2004. Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", IETF RFC 3945, October 2004.
[MLN-EXT] Papadimitriou, D. et al, "Generalized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (GMPLS) Protocol Extensions for Multi-Layer
and Multi-Region Networks (MLN/MRN)", work in progress.
[RFC5420] Farrel, A. Ed., "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP
Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE), IETF RFC 5420, February 2009.
8.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[IEEE 802.1Qay] "IEEE standard for Provider Backbone Bridges Traffic [IEEE 802.1ay] "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
Engineering", work in progress. Networks - Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks
- Amendment : Provider Backbone Bridges Traffic Engineering
(2009).
[IEEE 802.1ag] "IEEE Standard for Connectivity Fault [IEEE 802.1ag] "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
Management", (2007). Networks - Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks
- Amendment 5: Connectivity Fault Management (2007).
[IEEE 802.1ah] "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area [IEEE 802.1ah] "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
Networks - Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks Networks - Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks
- Amendment 6: Provider Backbone Bridges", (2008) - Amendment 6: Provider Backbone Bridges", (2008)
[RFC4875] Aggarwal, R. Ed., "Extensions to RSVP-TE for Point to [RFC4875] Aggarwal, R. Ed., "Extensions to RSVP-TE for Point to
Multipoint TE LSPs", IETF RFC 4875, May 2007 Multipoint TE LSPs", IETF RFC 4875, May 2007
[PATHCOMP] Farrel, A. et.al., "Path Computation Element (PCE) [PATHCOMP] Farrel, A. et.al., "Path Computation Element (PCE)
Architecture", work in progress. Architecture", IETF RFC 4655, August 2006
[RFC4872] Lang, J. et.al., "RSVP-TE Extensions in support of End-to- [RFC4872] Lang, J. et.al., "RSVP-TE Extensions in support of End-to-
End End
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)-based Recovery Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)-based Recovery
", RFC 4872, May 2007. ", RFC 4872, May 2007.
[RFC4873] Berger, L. et.al.,"MPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, May [RFC4873] Berger, L. et.al.,"MPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, May
2007. 2007.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D. et.al., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP [RFC3209] Awduche, D. et.al., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
skipping to change at page 17, line 37 skipping to change at page 18, line 26
9. Acknowledgments 9. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Dinesh Mohan, Nigel Bragg, Stephen The authors would like to thank Dinesh Mohan, Nigel Bragg, Stephen
Shew, Dave Martin and Sandra Ballarte for their contributions to this Shew, Dave Martin and Sandra Ballarte for their contributions to this
document. document.
10. Author's Address 10. Author's Address
Don Fedyk Don Fedyk
Nortel Networks Alcatel-Lucent
600 Technology Park Drive Groton, MA, 01450
Billerica, MA, 01821 Phone: +1-978-467-5645
Email: dwfedyk@nortel.com Email: donald.fedyk@alcatel-lucent.com
David Allan David Allan
Nortel Networks Ericsson
3500 Carling Ave. Email: david.i.allan@ericsson.com
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
Email: dallan@nortel.com
Himanshu Shah Himanshu Shah
Ciena Force10 Networks
35 Nagog Park, 30 Nagog Park,
Acton, MA 01720 Acton, MA 01720
Email: hshah@ciena.com Email: hshah@force10networks.com
Nabil Bitar Nabil Bitar
Verizon, Verizon,
40 Sylvan Rd., 40 Sylvan Rd.,
Waltham, MA 02451 Waltham, MA 02451
Email: nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com Email: nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com
Attila Takacs Attila Takacs
Ericsson Ericsson
1. Laborc u. 1. Laborc u.
Budapest, HUNGARY 1037 Budapest, HUNGARY 1037
Email: attila.takacs@ericsson.com Email: attila.takacs@ericsson.com
Diego Caviglia Diego Caviglia
Ericsson Ericsson
Via Negrone 1/A Via Negrone 1/A
Genoa, Italy 16153 Genoa, Italy 16153
skipping to change at line 754 skipping to change at line 777
COO RTP IE Fixed COO RTP IE Fixed
3 Hanagar St. Neve Ne'eman B, 3 Hanagar St. Neve Ne'eman B,
45241 Hod Hasharon, Israel 45241 Hod Hasharon, Israel
Email: nurit.sprecher@nsn.com Email: nurit.sprecher@nsn.com
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
Generated on: Wed Feb 25 13:53:58 EST 2009 Generated on: Wed Oct 14 13:52:17 EDT 2009
 End of changes. 67 change blocks. 
262 lines changed or deleted 285 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.37a. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/