draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-00.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-01.txt 
Network Working Group Dan Li Network Working Group Dan Li
Internet Draft Huawei Internet Draft Huawei
Updates: RFC4204 D. Ceccarelli Updates: RFC4204 D. Ceccarelli
Category: Standards Track Ericsson Category: Standards Track Ericsson
Expires: April 2011 October 8, 2010 Expires: April 2011 October 11, 2010
Behavior Negotiation in Link Management Protocol Behavior Negotiation in The Link Management Protocol
draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-00.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-01.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 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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.
skipping to change at page 1, line 34 skipping to change at page 1, line 34
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference at any 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/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
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 April 8, 2011. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 11, 2011.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2010 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 2, line 13 skipping to change at page 2, line 13
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Abstract Abstract
The Link Management Protocol (LMP) is used to coordinate the The Link Management Protocol (LMP) is used to coordinate the
properties, use, and faults of data links in Generalized properties, use, and faults of data links in Generalized
Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) networks. Various proposals Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) networks. Various proposals
have been advanced to provide extensions to the base LMP have been advanced to provide extensions to the base LMP
specification. This document provides a generic procedure for LMP specification. This document defines an extension to negotiated
capabilities and provides a generic procedure for LMP
implementations that do not recognize or do not support any one of implementations that do not recognize or do not support any one of
these extensions. these extensions.
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 NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................ 2 1. Introduction ................................................. 2
2. LMP Behavior Negotiation Procedure........................... 3 2. LMP Behavior Negotiation Procedure ........................... 3
3. Security Considerations...................................... 6 3. Backwards Compatibility ...................................... 5
4. IANA Considerations ......................................... 6 4. Security Considerations ...................................... 5
5. Contributors ................................................ 6 5. IANA Considerations .......................................... 6
6. Acknowledgments ............................................. 7 5.1. New LMP Class Type ...................................... 6
7. References .................................................. 7 5.2. New Capabilities Registry ............................... 6
7.1. Normative References.................................... 7 6. Contributors ................................................. 7
7.2. Informative References.................................. 7 7. Acknowledgments .............................................. 7
8. Authors' Address ............................................ 8 8. References ................................................... 7
8.1. Normative References .................................... 7
8.2. Informative References .................................. 8
9. Authors' Addresses ........................................... 8
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The Link Management Protocol (LMP) [RFC4204] is being successfully The Link Management Protocol (LMP) [RFC4204] is being successfully
deployed in Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) deployed in Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS)-
networks in the field. New LMP behaviors and protocol extensions are controlled networks. New LMP behaviors and protocol extensions are
being introduced in a number of IETF documents. being introduced in a number of IETF documents.
In the network, if one GMPLS Label Switching Router (LSR) supports a In the network, if one GMPLS Label Switch Router (LSR) supports a
new behavior or protocol extension, but its peer LSR does not, it is new behavior or protocol extension, but its peer LSR does not, it is
necessary to have a protocol mechanism for resolving issues that may necessary to have a protocol mechanism for resolving issues that may
arise. It is also beneficial to have a protocol mechanism to arise. It is also beneficial to have a protocol mechanism to
discover the capabilities of peer LSRs. There is no such procedure discover the capabilities of peer LSRs. There is no such procedure
defined in the base LMP specification [RFC4204], so this document defined in the base LMP specification [RFC4204], so this document
defines how to handle LMP extensions both at legacy LSRs and at defines how to handle LMP extensions both at legacy LSRs and at
upgraded LSRs that communicate with legacy LSRs. upgraded LSRs that would communicate with legacy LSRs.
In [RFC4204], the basic behaviors have been defined around the use In [RFC4204], the basic behaviors have been defined around the use
of the standard LMP message, which includes Config, Hello, Verify, of the standard LMP messages, which include Config, Hello, Verify,
Test, LinkSummary, ChannelStatus. Per [RCF4204], these behaviors Test, LinkSummary, and ChannelStatus. Per [RCF4204], these behaviors
MUST be supported when the LMP is implemented, and the message types MUST be supported when LMP is implemented, and the message types
from 1 to 20 are used for these behaviors. from 1 to 20 have been assigned by IANA for these messages.
In [RFC4207], the SONET/SDH technology-specific information for LMP In [RFC4207], the SONET/SDH technology-specific behavior and
is defined. The TRACE behavior is added to LMP, and the message information for LMP is defined. The TRACE behavior is added to LMP,
types from 21 to 31 were defined for the TRACE function. The TRACE and the message types from 21 to 31 were assigned by IANA for the
function has been extended for the support of OTNs (Optical messages that provide the TRACE function. The TRACE function has
Transport Networks) in [LMP TEST]. been extended for the support of OTNs (Optical Transport Networks)
in [LMP TEST].
In [RFC4209], extensions to LMP are defined to allow it to be used In [RFC4209], extensions to LMP are defined to allow it to be used
between a peer node and an adjacent optical line system (OLS). The between a peer node and an adjacent Optical Line System (OLS). The
LMP object class type and sub-object class name have been extended LMP object class type and sub-object class name have been extended
to support DWDM behavior. to support DWDM behavior.
In [RFC5818], the data channel consistency check behavior is defined, In [RFC5818], the data channel consistency check behavior is defined,
the message types from 32 to 34 are used for this behavior. and the message types from 32 to 34 have been assigned by IANA for
messages that provide this behavior.
It is likely that future extensions to LMP for other functions or
technologies will require the definition of further LMP messages.
This document describes the behavior negotiation procedure to make This document describes the behavior negotiation procedure to make
sure both LSRs of each link understand the LMP messages being sure both LSRs at the ends of each link understand the LMP messages
exchanged between peers. that they exchange.
2. LMP Behavior Negotiation Procedure 2. LMP Behavior Negotiation Procedure
The Config message is used in the control channel negotiation phase The Config message is used in the control channel negotiation phase
of LMP [RC4204]. The LMP behavior negotiation procedure is defined of LMP [RC4204]. The LMP behavior negotiation procedure is defined
in this document as an addition at this phase. in this document as an addition to this phase.
The Config message is defined in Section 12.3.1 of [RFC4204] and The Config message is defined in Section 12.3.1 of [RFC4204] and
carries the <CONFIG> object (class name 6) as defined in Section carries the <CONFIG> object (class name 6) as defined in Section
13.6 of [RFC4204]. Multiple <CONFIG> objects (each with a different 13.6 of [RFC4204].
Class Type) MAY be present on a Config message in which case all of
the objects MUST be processed.
Two class types have been defined: Two class types have been defined:
- C-Type = 1, HelloConfig, defined in [RFC4204] - C-Type = 1, HelloConfig, defined in [RFC4204]
- C-Type = 2, LMP_WDM_CONFIG, defined in [RFC4209] - C-Type = 2, LMP_WDM_CONFIG, defined in [RFC4209]
This document defines a third C-Type with value 3 (TBD by IANA) to
report and negotiate new and future LMP extensions and behaviors.
- C-Type = 3, ENHANCED_BEHAVIOR_CONFIG
Two different types of flag are defined in this object: Architecture
Flags and Capability Flags. The first set of flags indicates the
network architecture supported by the node (e.g. OTN, SDH/SONET,
DWDM), while the second one all the optional capabilities supported
by the protocol implementation (e.g. Link Verification, Fault
Management). The existing RFCs define the following capabilities:
- Control Channel Management (Mandatory)
- Link Property Correlation (Mandatory)
- Link Verification (Optional) This document defines a third C-Type with value 3 (TBD by IANA) to
report and negotiate currently defined LMP mechanisms and behaviors,
- Fault Management (Optional) and to allow future LMP extensions to be reported and negotiated.
- Trace Monitoring (Optional)
- Data Channel Status Confirmation (Optional)
Due to the fact that Control Channel Management and Link Property - C-Type = 3, BEHAVIOR_CONFIG
Correlation are mandatory capabilities, no capability flag is
defined for their configuration. When an architecture flag is set,
automatically these two capabilities are implicitly supported. With
respect to the other ones, a flag for each of them is defined.
The format of the new type of CONFIG Class is defined as follows: The format of the new type of CONFIG Class is defined as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved |M|O|W|S| Reserved |D|T|F|V| | Length |B|S|D|C|O| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|<----- Architecture Flags ---->|<----- Capability Flags ----->|
Architecture Flags:
S: 1 bit
This bit indicates support for the SONET/SDH.
W: 1 bit
This bit indicates support for WDM.
O: 1 bit Length: 8 bits
This bit indicates support for OTN. This field indicates the total length of the objects expressed in
multiples of 4 bytes.
M: 1 bit Flags:
This bit indicates support for MPLS-TP B: 1 bit
Capability Flags: This bit indicates support for the basic behaviors defined in
[RFC4204].
V: 1 bit S: 1 bit
This bit indicates support for the Link Verification capability This bit indicates support for the Trace behavior of SONET/SDH
defined in [RFC4204]. technology-specific defined in [RFC4207].
F: 1 bit D: 1 bit
This bit indicates support for the Fault Management capability This bit indicates support for the DWDM behavior defined in
defined in [RFC4204]. [RFC4209].
T: 1 bit C: 1 bit
This bit indicates support for the Trace Monitoring defined in This bit indicates support for the data channel consistency check
[RFC4204], [RFC4207] and [LMP TEST]. behavior defined in [RFC5818].
D: 1 bit O: 1 bit
This bit indicates support for the Data Channel Status Confirmation This bit indicates support for the TEST behavior of OTN
messages defined in [RFC5818]. technology-specific defined in [LMP TEST].
Further bits may be defined in future documents. Further bits may be defined in future documents.
The Reserved field MUST be sent as zero and MUST NOT be ignored on The Reserved field MUST be sent as zero and MUST NOT be ignored on
receipt. This allows the detection of supported/unsupported LMP receipt. This allows the detection of unsupported or unknown LMP
behaviors. behaviors when new bits are allocated to indicate further
capabilities and are sent as one.
Upon receiving a bit set related to a non supported behavior, a Upon receiving a bit set related to an unsupported or unknown
ConfigNack message MUST be sent with a <CONFIG> object representing behavior, a ConfigNack message MUST be sent with a <CONFIG> object,
the supported LMP behaviors. the BEHAVIOR_CONFIG C-Type representing the supported LMP behaviors.
An LSR receiving such a ConfigNack SHOULD select a supported set of
capabilities and send a further Config message, or MAY raise an
alert to the management system (or log an error) and stop trying to
perform LMP communications with its neighbor.
3. Backwards Compatibility
An LSR that receives a Config message containing a <CONFIG> object An LSR that receives a Config message containing a <CONFIG> object
with a C-Type that it does not recognize MUST respond with a with a C-Type that it does not recognize MUST respond with a
ConfigNack message as described in [RFC4204]. Thus, legacy LMP nodes ConfigNack message as described in [RFC4204]. Thus, legacy LMP nodes
that do not support the ENHANCED_BEHAVIOR_CONFIG C-Type defined in that do not support the BEHAVIOR_CONFIG C-Type defined in this
this document will respond with a ConfigNack message. document will respond with a ConfigNack message.
3. Security Considerations It's not explicitly stated in [RFC4204] that a Config Message could
include multiple <CONFIG> objects. But with new CONFIG C-Types are
defined, multiple <CONFIG> objects (each with a different Class Type)
MAY be present on a Config message in which case all of the objects
MUST be processed.
4. Security Considerations
[RFC4204] describes how LMP messages between peers can be secured, [RFC4204] describes how LMP messages between peers can be secured,
and these measures are equally applicable to messages carrying the and these measures are equally applicable to messages carrying the
new <CONFIG> object defined in this document. new <CONFIG> object defined in this document.
The operation of the procedures described in this document does not The operation of the procedures described in this document does not
of itself constitute a security risk since they do not cause any of itself constitute a security risk since they do not cause any
change in network state. It would be possible, if the messages were change in network state. It would be possible, if the messages were
intercepted or spoofed to cause bogus alerts in the management plane, intercepted or spoofed to cause bogus alerts in the management plane,
or to cause LMP peers to consider that they could or could not or to cause LMP peers to consider that they could or could not
operate protocol extensions, and so the use of the LMP security operate protocol extensions, and so the use of the LMP security
measures are RECOMMENDED. measures are RECOMMENDED.
4. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
5.1. New LMP Class Type
IANA maintains the "Link Management Protocol (LMP)" registry which IANA maintains the "Link Management Protocol (LMP)" registry which
has a subregistry called "LMP Object Class name space and Class type has a subregistry called "LMP Object Class name space and Class type
(C-Type)". (C-Type)".
IANA is requested to make an assignment from this registry as IANA is requested to make an assignment from this registry as
follows: follows:
6 CONFIG [RFC4204] 6 CONFIG [RFC4204]
CONFIG Object Class type name space: CONFIG Object Class type name space:
C-Type Description Reference C-Type Description Reference
------ ------------------------ --------- ------ ------------------------ ---------
3 ENHANCED_BEHAVIOR_CONFIG [This.I-D] 3 BEHAVIOR_CONFIG [This.I-D]
5. Contributors 5.2. New Capabilities Registry
IANA is requested to create a new subregistry of the "Link
Management Protocol (LMP)" registry to track the Behaviour
Configuration bits defined in Section 2 of this document. It is
suggested that this registry be called "LMP Behaviour Configuration
Flags".
Allocations from this registry are by Standards Action.
Bits in this registry are numbered from zero as the most significant
bit (transmitted first). The number of bits that can be present is
limited by the length field of the <CONFIG> object which gives rise
to (255 x 32)-8 = 8152. IANA is strongly recommended to allocate new
bits with the lowest available unused number.
The registry is initially populated as follows:
Bit | Bit | Meaning | Reference
Number | Name | |
-------+------+----------------------------------------+----------
0 | B | Basic LMP behavior support | [This.ID]
1 | S | SONET/SDH Test support | [This.ID]
2 | D | DWDM support | [This.ID]
3 | C | Data Channel consistency check support | [This.ID]
4 | O | OTN TEST behavior | [This.ID]
6. Contributors
Diego Caviglia Diego Caviglia
Ericsson Ericsson
Via A. Negrone 1/A 16153 Via A. Negrone 1/A 16153
Genoa Italy Genoa Italy
Phone: +39 010 600 3736 Phone: +39 010 600 3736
Email: diego.caviglia@ericsson.com Email: diego.caviglia@ericsson.com
6. Acknowledgments 7. Acknowledgments
Thanks to Adrian Farrel and Lou Berger for their useful comments. Thanks to Adrian Farrel and Lou Berger for their useful comments.
7. References 8. References
7.1. 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.
[RFC4204] J. Lang, Ed., "Link Management Protocol (LMP)", RFC 4204, [RFC4204] J. Lang, Ed., "Link Management Protocol (LMP)", RFC 4204,
October 2005. October 2005.
[RFC4207] J. Lang, Ed., "Synchronous Optical Network (SONET)/ [RFC4207] J. Lang, Ed., "Synchronous Optical Network (SONET)/
Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Encoding for Link Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Encoding for Link
Management Protocol (LMP) Test Messages", RFC 4207, Management Protocol (LMP) Test Messages", RFC 4207,
October 2005. October 2005.
[RFC4209] A. Fredette, Ed., "Link Management Protocol (LMP) for [RFC4209] A. Fredette, Ed., "Link Management Protocol (LMP) for
Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) Optical Line Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) Optical Line
Systems", RFC 4209, October 2005. Systems", RFC 4209, October 2005.
[RFC5818] D. Li, Ed., "Data Channel Status Confirmation Extensions [RFC5818] D. Li, Ed., "Data Channel Status Confirmation Extensions
for the Link Management Protocol", RFC 5818, April 2010. for the Link Management Protocol", RFC 5818, April 2010.
7.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[LMP TEST] D. Ceccarelli, Ed., "Link Management Protocol (LMP) Test [LMP TEST] D. Ceccarelli, Ed., "Link Management Protocol (LMP) Test
Messages Extensions for Evolutive Optical Transport Messages Extensions for Evolutive Optical Transport
Networks (OTN)" draft-ceccarelli-ccamp-gmpls-g709-lmp- Networks (OTN)" draft-ceccarelli-ccamp-gmpls-g709-lmp-
test-02.txt, May, 2010. test-02.txt, May, 2010.
8. Authors' Address 9. Authors' Addresses
Dan Li Dan Li
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Industrial Base, F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Industrial Base,
Shenzhen 518129 China Shenzhen 518129 China
Phone: +86 755-289-70230 Phone: +86 755-289-70230
Email: danli@huawei.com Email: danli@huawei.com
Daniele Ceccarelli Daniele Ceccarelli
Ericsson Ericsson
 End of changes. 46 change blocks. 
107 lines changed or deleted 125 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.40. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/