draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-11.txt   rfc6898.txt 
Network Working Group Dan Li
Internet Draft Huawei
Updates: 4204, 4207, 4209, 5818 D. Ceccarelli
Category: Standards Track Ericsson
Lou Berger
LabN
Expires: August 2013 February 8, 2013
Link Management Protocol Behavior Negotiation and Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) D. Li
Configuration Modifications Request for Comments: 6898 Huawei
Updates: 4204, 4207, 4209, 5818 D. Ceccarelli
Category: Standards Track Ericsson
ISSN: 2070-1721 L. Berger
LabN
March 2013
draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-11.txt Link Management Protocol Behavior Negotiation and
Configuration Modifications
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 networks controlled by
Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS)-controlled networks. This Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS). This document
document defines an extension to LMP to negotiate capabilities and defines an extension to LMP to negotiate capabilities and indicate
indicate support for LMP extensions. The defined extension is support for LMP extensions. The defined extension is compatible with
compatible with non-supporting implementations. non-supporting implementations.
This document updates RFC 4204, RFC 4207, RFC 4209 and RFC 5818.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with This document updates RFC 4204, RFC 4207, RFC 4209, and RFC 5818.
the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Status of This Memo
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 This is an Internet Standards Track document.
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 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 5, 2013. http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6898.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2013 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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................ 3 1. Introduction ....................................................3
2. LMP Message Modifications.................................... 4 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document ..........................4
2.1. Modified Message Formats................................ 4 2. LMP Message Modifications .......................................4
2.2. Processing ............................................. 5 2.1. Modified Message Formats ...................................4
3. LMP Behavior Negotiation..................................... 6 2.2. Processing .................................................5
3.1. BehaviorConfig C-Type Format............................ 6 3. LMP Behavior Negotiation ........................................6
3.2. Processing ............................................. 7 3.1. BehaviorConfig C-Type Format ...............................6
4. Backward Compatibility....................................... 7 3.2. Processing .................................................7
5. Security Considerations...................................... 8 4. Backward Compatibility ..........................................7
6. IANA Considerations ......................................... 9 5. Security Considerations .........................................8
6.1. New LMP Class Type...................................... 9 6. IANA Considerations .............................................9
6.2. New Capabilities Registry............................... 9 6.1. New LMP Class Type .........................................9
7. Contributors ............................................... 10 6.2. New Capabilities Registry ..................................9
8. Acknowledgments ............................................ 10 7. Normative References ...........................................10
9. References ................................................. 10 8. Acknowledgments ................................................10
9.1. Normative References................................... 10 9. Contributors ...................................................10
10. Authors' Addresses ........................................ 11
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The Link Management Protocol (LMP) [RFC4204] has been successfully The Link Management Protocol (LMP) [RFC4204] has been successfully
deployed in Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS)- deployed in networks controlled by Generalized Multiprotocol Label
controlled networks. Switching (GMPLS).
New LMP behaviors and protocol extensions have been introduced in a New LMP behaviors and protocol extensions have been introduced in a
number of IETF documents as set out later in this section. It is number of IETF documents, as set out later in this section. It is
likely that future extensions will be made to support additional likely that future extensions will be made to support additional
functions. functions.
In a network, if one LMP-capable node supports a new behavior or In a network, if one LMP-capable node supports a new behavior or
protocol extension but its adjacent node does not, it is beneficial protocol extension but its adjacent node does not, it is beneficial
to have a protocol mechanism to discover the capabilities of peer to have a protocol mechanism to discover the capabilities of peer
nodes so that the right protocol extensions can be selected and the nodes so that the right protocol extensions can be selected and the
correct features can be enabled. There are no such procedures correct features can be enabled. There are no such procedures
defined in the base LMP specification [RFC4204]. [RFC4209] defined a defined in the base LMP specification [RFC4204]. [RFC4209] defined a
specific mechanism to identify support for the functions specified specific mechanism to identify support for the functions specified in
in that document. This document defines an LMP extension to support that document. This document defines an LMP extension to support the
the identification of supported LMP functions in a generic fashion, identification of supported LMP functions in a generic fashion, as
as well as how a node supporting these extensions would communicate well as how a node supporting these extensions would communicate with
with legacy nodes. legacy nodes.
In [RFC4204], the basic behaviors have been defined around the use In [RFC4204], the basic behaviors have been defined around the use of
of the standard LMP messages, which include Config, Hello, Verify, the standard LMP messages, which include Config, Hello, Verify, Test,
Test, LinkSummary, and ChannelStatus. Per [RFC4204], these behaviors LinkSummary, and ChannelStatus. Per [RFC4204], these behaviors MUST
MUST be supported when LMP is implemented, and the message types be supported when LMP is implemented, and the message types from 1 to
from 1 to 20 have been assigned by IANA for these messages. Support 20 have been assigned by IANA for these messages. Support for all
for all functions required by [RFC4204] is assumed by this document. functions required by [RFC4204] is assumed by this document.
In [RFC4207], the SONET/SDH technology-specific behavior and In [RFC4207], the SONET/SDH technology-specific behavior and
information for LMP is defined. The Trace behavior is added to LMP, information for LMP is defined. The Trace behavior is added to LMP,
and the message types from 21 to 31 were assigned by IANA for the and the message types from 21 to 31 have been assigned by IANA for
messages that provide the TRACE function. the messages that provide the Trace function.
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 subobject class name have been extended to
to support DWDM behavior. support Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) behavior.
In [RFC5818], the data channel consistency check behavior is defined, In [RFC5818], the data channel consistency check behavior is defined,
and the message types from 32 to 34 have been assigned by IANA for and the message types from 32 to 34 have been assigned by IANA for
messages that provide this behavior. messages that provide this behavior.
It is likely that future extensions to LMP for other functions or It is likely that future extensions to LMP for other functions or
technologies will require the definition of further LMP messages. technologies will require the definition of further LMP messages.
This document describes an LMP extension, which is referred to as This document describes an LMP extension, referred to as behavior
behavior negotiation, which enables nodes at the ends of a link to negotiation, that enables the nodes at the ends of a link to identify
identify the LMP messages and functions supported by the adjacent the LMP messages and functions supported by the adjacent node. The
node. The extension makes use of a new CONFIG object. The use of extension makes use of a new CONFIG object. The use of this new
this new object does not preclude the use of existing or yet to be object does not preclude the use of existing or yet to be defined
defined CONFIG object. CONFIG objects.
This document also modifies the format of messages that carry CONFIG This document also modifies the format of messages that carry the
object to allow for multiple objects. Multiple CONFIG objects allow CONFIG object to allow for multiple objects. Multiple CONFIG objects
behavior negotiation concurrent with existing usage of the CONFIG allow behavior negotiation concurrent with existing usage of the
object, i.e., HelloConfig C-Type defined in [RFC4204] and CONFIG object, i.e., HelloConfig C-Type defined in [RFC4204] and
LMP_WDM_CONFIG C-Type defined in [RFC4209]. This document modifies LMP-WDM_CONFIG C-Type defined in [RFC4209]. This document modifies
the ConfigAck message to include CONFIG objects so that acceptable the ConfigAck message to include CONFIG objects so that acceptable
parameters are explicitly identified. It also describes how a node parameters are explicitly identified. It also describes how a node
which supports the extensions defined in this document interacts that supports the extensions defined in this document interacts with
with a legacy LMP-capable node. a legacy LMP-capable node.
2. LMP Message Modifications 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document
LMP Config, ConfigNack and ConfigAck messages are modified by this The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
document to allow for the inclusion of multiple CONFIG objects. The "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. LMP Message Modifications
LMP Config, ConfigNack, and ConfigAck messages are modified by this
document to allow for the inclusion of multiple CONFIG objects. The
Config and ConfigNack messages were only defined to carry one CONFIG Config and ConfigNack messages were only defined to carry one CONFIG
object in [RFC4204]. The ConfigAck message, which was defined object in [RFC4204]. The ConfigAck message, which was defined
without carrying any CONFIG objects in [RFC4204], is modified to without carrying any CONFIG objects in [RFC4204], is modified to
enable explicit identification of negotiated configuration enable explicit identification of negotiated configuration
parameters. The inclusion of CONFIG objects in ConfigAck messages is parameters. The inclusion of CONFIG objects in ConfigAck messages is
triggered by the use of the BehaviorConfig object (defined below) in triggered by the use of the BehaviorConfig object (defined below) in
a received Config message. a received Config message.
The message formats in the sections that follow use Backus-Naur Form The message formats in the sections that follow use Backus-Naur Form
(BNF) encoding as defined in [RFC5511]. (BNF) encoding as defined in [RFC5511].
2.1. Modified Message Formats 2.1. Modified Message Formats
The format of the Config message as updated by this document is as The format of the Config message as updated by this document is as
follows: follows:
<Config Message> ::= <Common Header> <LOCAL_CCID> <MESSAGE_ID>
<LOCAL_NODE_ID> <CONFIG> [ <CONFIG> ... ]
<Config Message> ::= <Common Header> <LOCAL_CCID> <MESSAGE_ID> The format of the ConfigAck message as updated by this document is as
<LOCAL_NODE_ID> <CONFIG> [ <CONFIG> ... ] follows:
The format of the ConfigAck message as updated by this document is
as follows:
<ConfigAck Message> ::= <Common Header> <LOCAL_CCID> <LOCAL_NODE_ID> <ConfigAck Message> ::= <Common Header> <LOCAL_CCID> <LOCAL_NODE_ID>
<REMOTE_CCID> <MESSAGE_ID_ACK> <REMOTE_CCID> <MESSAGE_ID_ACK>
<REMOTE_NODE_ID>[ <CONFIG> ... ] <REMOTE_NODE_ID>[ <CONFIG> ... ]
The format of the ConfigNack message as updated by this document is The format of the ConfigNack message as updated by this document is
as follows: as follows:
<ConfigNack Message> ::= <Common Header> <LOCAL_CCID> <ConfigNack Message> ::= <Common Header> <LOCAL_CCID>
<LOCAL_NODE_ID> <REMOTE_CCID> <LOCAL_NODE_ID> <REMOTE_CCID>
<MESSAGE_ID_ACK> <REMOTE_NODE_ID> <MESSAGE_ID_ACK> <REMOTE_NODE_ID>
<CONFIG> [ <CONFIG> ... ] <CONFIG> [ <CONFIG> ... ]
2.2. Processing 2.2. Processing
Nodes that support the extensions defined in this document MAY Nodes that support the extensions defined in this document MAY
include multiple CONFIG objects when sending a Config, ConfigAck and include multiple CONFIG objects when sending a Config, ConfigAck, and
ConfigNack message. A maximum of a single object of any particular ConfigNack message. A maximum of a single object of any particular
C-type SHALL be included. A node which receives a message with C-type SHALL be included. A node that receives a message with
multiple CONFIG objects of the same C-type SHALL process the first multiple CONFIG objects of the same C-type SHALL process the first
object of a particular C-type and ignore any subsequent CONFIG object of a particular C-type and ignore any subsequent CONFIG
objects of the same C-type. Unless specified as part of the CONFIG objects of the same C-type. Unless specified as part of the CONFIG
object definition, ordering of CONFIG objects with different C-type object definition, ordering of CONFIG objects with different C-type
values is not significant. values is not significant.
Nodes that support the extensions defined in this document MUST Nodes that support the extensions defined in this document MUST
include a BehaviorConfig type object when sending a Config message include a BehaviorConfig type object when sending a Config message to
to a neighbor whose support for the extensions is either known or a neighbor whose support for the extensions is either known or
unknown. When the neighbor is known to not support the extensions, unknown. When the neighbor is known to not support the extensions,
the object MUST NOT be sent. Inclusion of other CONFIG objects in a the object MUST NOT be sent. Inclusion of other CONFIG objects in a
Config message is at the discretion of the message sender, and is Config message is at the discretion of the message sender and is
based on the rules defined as part of CONFIG object definition. based on the rules defined as part of CONFIG object definition.
Nodes MAY include HelloConfig, LMP_WDM_CONFIG, BehaviorConfig object Nodes MAY include HelloConfig, LMP-WDM_CONFIG, BehaviorConfig object
types in a single message. types in a single message.
Inclusion of multiple CONFIG objects in a ConfigNack message is Inclusion of multiple CONFIG objects in a ConfigNack message is based
based on the processing of a received Config message. Per [RFC4204] on the processing of a received Config message. Per [RFC4204],
"Parameters where agreement was reached MUST NOT be included in the "Parameters where agreement was reached MUST NOT be included in the
ConfigNack Message." As such, a ConfigNack message MUST NOT include ConfigNack Message." As such, a ConfigNack message MUST NOT include
CONFIG objects which are acceptable and MUST include any CONFIG CONFIG objects that are acceptable and MUST include any CONFIG
objects which are not acceptable. When a CONFIG object is included objects which are not acceptable. When a CONFIG object is included
in a ConfigNack message, per [RFC4204], the object is to include in a ConfigNack message, per [RFC4204], the object is to include
"acceptable alternate values for negotiable parameters". "acceptable alternate values for negotiable parameters".
When sending a ConfigAck message, nodes supporting the extensions When sending a ConfigAck message, nodes supporting the extensions
defined in this document MUST include all CONFIG objects received in defined in this document MUST include all CONFIG objects received in
the corresponding Config message when that message includes a CONFIG the corresponding Config message when that message includes a CONFIG
object of type BehaviorConfig. object of type BehaviorConfig.
3. LMP Behavior Negotiation 3. LMP Behavior Negotiation
The Config message is used in the control channel negotiation phase The Config message is used in the control channel negotiation phase
of LMP [RFC4204]. The LMP behavior negotiation procedure is defined of LMP [RFC4204]. The LMP behavior negotiation procedure is defined
in this document as an addition to 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 13.6 carries the CONFIG object (class name 6) as defined in Section 13.6
of [RFC4204]. of [RFC4204].
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 to report and negotiate LMP This document defines a third C-Type to report and negotiate LMP
mechanisms and behaviors. Its usage indicates support for the mechanisms and behaviors. Its usage indicates support for the
extensions defined in this document. extensions defined in this document.
3.1. BehaviorConfig C-Type Format 3.1. BehaviorConfig C-Type Format
Class = 6 Class = 6
- C-Type = (To be assigned by IANA), BehaviorConfig - C-Type = 3, BehaviorConfig
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|S|D|C| Must Be Zero (MBZ) | |S|D|C| Must Be Zero (MBZ) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Flags: Flags:
S: 1 bit S: 1 bit
This bit indicates support for the Trace behavior of SONET/SDH This bit indicates support for the Trace behavior of SONET/SDH
technology-specific defined in [RFC4207]. technology-specific defined in [RFC4207].
D: 1 bit D: 1 bit
skipping to change at page 7, line 23 skipping to change at page 7, line 13
[RFC4209]. [RFC4209].
C: 1 bit C: 1 bit
This bit indicates support for the data channel consistency check This bit indicates support for the data channel consistency check
behavior defined in [RFC5818]. behavior defined in [RFC5818].
Must Be Zero (MBZ): Variable length Must Be Zero (MBZ): Variable length
The remaining bits in the flags field MUST be set to zero (0). The remaining bits in the flags field MUST be set to zero (0).
This field MUST be sized to ensure 32 bit alignment of the object. This field MUST be sized to ensure 32-bit alignment of the object.
Other bits may be defined in future documents, in which case the Other bits may be defined in future documents, in which case the
number of bits in MBZ field is expected to change. number of bits in the MBZ field is expected to change.
3.2. Processing 3.2. Processing
The inclusion of a BehaviorConfig type object in a message is The inclusion of a BehaviorConfig type object in a message is
discussed above in Section 2.2. discussed above in Section 2.2.
When sending a BehaviorConfig type object, the N-bit (negotiable) in When sending a BehaviorConfig type object, the N-bit (negotiable) in
the LMP object header MUST be set (N=1) in the LMP object header. the LMP object header MUST be set (N=1) in the LMP object header.
When sending a BehaviorConfig type object in Config and ConfigNack When sending a BehaviorConfig type object in Config and ConfigNack
messages, the flags field SHOULD be set based on the supported messages, the flags field SHOULD be set based on the supported
capabilities of the sending node. When sending a ConfigAck message, capabilities of the sending node. When sending a ConfigAck message,
the flags field MUST be set to the value received in the the flags field MUST be set to the value received in the
corresponding Config message. corresponding Config message.
When receiving a BehaviorConfig type object, the node compares the When receiving a BehaviorConfig type object, the node compares the
flags field against its capacities. Any bit set in the MBZ portion flags field against its capacities. Any bit set in the MBZ portion
of the flags field MUST be interpreted as unacceptable. Processing of the flags field MUST be interpreted as unacceptable. Processing
related to unacceptable values in CONFIG objects is defined in related to unacceptable values in CONFIG objects is defined in
[RFC4204] and is not modified by this document. [RFC4204] and is not modified by this document.
4. Backward Compatibility 4. Backward Compatibility
The required use of the BehaviorConfig type CONFIG object enables The required use of the BehaviorConfig type CONFIG object enables
nodes which support the extensions defined in this document to nodes that support the extensions defined in this document to
explicitly identify when a neighboring node does not. When a non- explicitly identify when a neighboring node does not. When a non-
supporting node receives a Config message with the BehaviorConfig supporting node receives a Config message with the BehaviorConfig
type CONFIG object or multiple CONFIG objects its behavior is to be type CONFIG object or multiple CONFIG objects, its behavior is to be
one of the following behaviors: one of the following behaviors:
a) Reject the Config message because of the unknown BehaviorConfig a) Reject the Config message because of the unknown BehaviorConfig
object type and send a ConfigNack message which includes the object type and send a ConfigNack message which includes the
unsupported C-type. unsupported C-type.
b) Reject the message because of multiple CONFIG objects and send a b) Reject the message because of multiple CONFIG objects and send a
ConfigNack message which includes all but one of the CONFIG ConfigNack message which includes all but one of the CONFIG
objects. objects.
c) Silently ignore the one or more of the CONFIG object, and respond c) Silently ignore the one or more of the CONFIG object, and respond
with a ConfigAck message that does not include any CONFIG objects. with a ConfigAck message that does not include any CONFIG objects.
d) Treat the message as malformed, and discard it without any d) Treat the message as malformed, and discard it without any
response. response.
Behaviors (a) and (b) result in ConfigNack messages with a Behaviors (a) and (b) result in ConfigNack messages with a
BehaviorConfig type object whose contents are identical to what was BehaviorConfig type object whose contents are identical to what was
sent in the Config message. Behavior (c) results in a ConfigAck sent in the Config message. Behavior (c) results in a ConfigAck
message without a BehaviorConfig type CONFIG object. In each of message without a BehaviorConfig type CONFIG object. In each of
these cases, the node SHOULD explicitly identify that the LMP these cases, the node SHOULD explicitly identify that the LMP
neighbor does not support the extensions defined in this document. neighbor does not support the extensions defined in this document.
Behavior (d) results in no response at all. When the node reaches Behavior (d) results in no response at all. When the node reaches
the, [RFC4204]-defined, "retry limit", the node SHOULD infer that the "retry limit", defined in [RFC4204], the node SHOULD infer that
the LMP neighbor does not support the extensions defined in this the LMP neighbor does not support the extensions defined in this
document. document.
Once a node identifies a neighbor as not supporting the extensions Once a node identifies a neighbor as not supporting the extensions
defined in this document, the node SHOULD follow previously defined defined in this document, the node SHOULD follow previously defined
Config message usage. Config message usage.
5. Security Considerations 5. 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 procedures described in this document do not of itself Alone, the procedures described in this document do not constitute a
constitute a security risk since they do not cause any change in security risk, since they do not cause any change in network state.
network state. It would be possible, if the messages were It would be possible, if the messages were intercepted or spoofed to
intercepted or spoofed to cause bogus alerts in the management plane, cause bogus alerts in the management plane, or to cause LMP peers to
or to cause LMP peers to consider that they could or could not consider that they could or could not operate protocol extensions,
operate protocol extensions, and so the use of the LMP security and so the use of the LMP security measures are RECOMMENDED.
measures are RECOMMENDED.
Note, however that [RFC4204] references for security have been Note, however, that [RFC4204] references for security have been
updated with [RFC4301] and the current reference for IKEv2 is updated with [RFC4301], and the current reference for IKEv2 is
[RFC5996]. [RFC5996].
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
6.1. New LMP Class Type 6.1. New LMP Class Type
IANA maintains the "Link Management Protocol (LMP)" registry which IANA maintains the "Link Management Protocol (LMP) Parameters"
has a subregistry called "LMP Object Class name space and Class type registry, which has a subregistry called "LMP Object Class name space
(C-Type)". and Class type (C-Type)".
IANA is requested to make an assignment from this registry as IANA has made 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(suggested) BehaviorConfig [This.I-D] 3 BehaviorConfig RFC 6898
6.2. New Capabilities Registry 6.2. New Capabilities Registry
IANA is requested to create a new subregistry of the "Link IANA has created a new subregistry of the "Link Management Protocol
Management Protocol (LMP)" registry to track the Behavior (LMP) Parameters" registry to track the Behavior Configuration bits
Configuration bits defined in Section 2 of this document. It is defined in Section 2 of this document. This registry is called "LMP
suggested that this registry be called "LMP Behavior Configuration Behavior Configuration Flags".
Flags".
Allocations from this registry are by Standards Action. Allocations from this registry are by Standards Action.
Bits in this registry are numbered from zero as the most significant Bits in this registry are numbered from zero as the most significant
bit (transmitted first). The number of bits that can be present is 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 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 (255 x 32)-8 = 8152. IANA is strongly recommended to allocate new
bits with the lowest available unused number. bits with the lowest available unused number.
The registry is initially populated as follows: The registry is initially populated as follows:
Bit | Bit | Meaning | Reference Bit | Bit | Meaning | Reference
Number | Name | | Number | Name | |
-------+------+----------------------------------------+---------- -------+------+----------------------------------------+----------
0 | S | SONET/SDH Test support | [This.ID] 0 | S | SONET/SDH Test support | RFC 6898
1 | D | DWDM support | [This.ID] 1 | D | DWDM support | RFC 6898
2 | C | Data Channel consistency check support | [This.ID] 2 | C | Data Channel consistency check support | RFC 6898
7. Contributors
Diego Caviglia 7. Normative References
Ericsson
Via A. Negrone 1/A 16153
Genoa Italy
Phone: +39 010 600 3736
Email: diego.caviglia@ericsson.com
8. Acknowledgments [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Thanks to Adrian Farrel and Richard Graveman for their useful [RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
comments. Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.
9. References [RFC5996] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., and P. Eronen,
"Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)", RFC
5996, September 2010.
9.1. Normative References [RFC4204] Lang, J., Ed., "Link Management Protocol (LMP)", RFC 4204,
October 2005.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC4207] Lang, J. and D. Papadimitriou, "Synchronous Optical
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Network (SONET)/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH)
Encoding for Link Management Protocol (LMP) Test
Messages", RFC 4207, October 2005.
[RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the [RFC4209] Fredette, A., Ed., and J. Lang, Ed., "Link Management
Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005 Protocol (LMP) for Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing
(DWDM) Optical Line Systems", RFC 4209, October 2005.
[RFC5996] C. Kaufman, P. Hoffman, Y. Nir, P. Eronen, "Internet Key [RFC5818] Li, D., Xu, H., Bardalai, S., Meuric, J., and D. Caviglia,
Exchange Protocol: IKEv2", RFC 5996, September 2010. "Data Channel Status Confirmation Extensions for the Link
Management Protocol", RFC 5818, April 2010.
[RFC4204] J. Lang, Ed., "Link Management Protocol (LMP)", RFC 4204, [RFC5511] Farrel, A., "Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF): A Syntax
October 2005. Used to Form Encoding Rules in Various Routing Protocol
Specifications", RFC 5511, April 2009.
[RFC4207] J. Lang, Ed., "Synchronous Optical Network (SONET)/ 8. Acknowledgments
Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Encoding for Link
Management Protocol (LMP) Test Messages", RFC 4207,
October 2005.
[RFC4209] A. Fredette, Ed., "Link Management Protocol (LMP) for Thanks to Adrian Farrel and Richard Graveman for their useful
Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) Optical Line comments.
Systems", RFC 4209, October 2005.
[RFC5818] D. Li, Ed., "Data Channel Status Confirmation Extensions 9. Contributors
for the Link Management Protocol", RFC 5818, April 2010.
[RFC5511] Farrel, A., Ed., "Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF): A Diego Caviglia
Syntax Used to Form Encoding Rules in Various Routing Ericsson
Protocol Specifications", RFC 5511, April 2009. Via E. Melen, 77
Genova - Erzelli
Italy
Phone: +39 010 600 3736
EMail: diego.caviglia@ericsson.com
10. Authors' Addresses 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
Phone: +86 755-289-70230 China
Email: huawei.danli@huawei.com Phone: +86 755-289-70230
EMail: huawei.danli@huawei.com
Daniele Ceccarelli Daniele Ceccarelli
Ericsson Ericsson
Via A. Negrone 1/A Via E. Melen, 77
Genova - Sestri Ponente Genova - Erzelli
Italy Italy
Email: daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com EMail: daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com
Lou Berger Lou Berger
LabN Consulting, L.L.C. LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Email: lberger@labn.net EMail: lberger@labn.net
 End of changes. 84 change blocks. 
250 lines changed or deleted 226 lines changed or added

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