draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-test-sonet-sdh-03.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-test-sonet-sdh-04.txt 
Network Working Group J.P. Lang Network Working Group J.P. Lang
Internet Draft (Rincon Networks) Internet Draft (Rincon Networks)
Category: Standards Track Category: Standards Track
Expires: September 2003 D. Papadimitriou Expires: June 2004 D. Papadimitriou
(Alcatel) (Alcatel)
May 2003 December 2003
SONET/SDH Encoding for Link Management SONET/SDH Encoding for Link Management
Protocol (LMP) Test messages Protocol (LMP) Test messages
draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-test-sonet-sdh-03.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-test-sonet-sdh-04.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
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 2, line 10 skipping to change at page 2, line 10
This document details the Synchronous Optical NETwork (SONET)/ This document details the Synchronous Optical NETwork (SONET)/
Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) technology specific information Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) technology specific information
needed when sending Link Management Protocol (LMP) test messages. needed when sending Link Management Protocol (LMP) test messages.
[Editor's note: "Changes from previous version" notes can be removed [Editor's note: "Changes from previous version" notes can be removed
prior to publication as an RFC.] prior to publication as an RFC.]
Changes from previous version: Changes from previous version:
o Removed Jx-16 message formats o Modified the IANA Considerations section as a result of IESG
review.
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
For scalability purposes, multiple physical resources that For scalability purposes, multiple physical resources that
interconnect LSRs can be combined to form a single traffic interconnect LSRs can be combined to form a single traffic
engineering (TE) link for the purposes of path computation and engineering (TE) link for the purposes of path computation and
signaling. These resources may represent one or more physical links signaling. These resources may represent one or more physical links
that connect the LSRs, or they may represent a Label Switched Path that connect the LSRs, or they may represent a Label Switched Path
(LSP) if LSP hierarchy [LSP-HIER] is used. The management of TE (LSP) if LSP hierarchy [LSP-HIER] is used. The management of TE
links is not restricted to in-band messaging, but instead can be links is not restricted to in-band messaging, but instead can be
skipping to change at page 12, line 18 skipping to change at page 12, line 18
defined in Section 4.1.3.1) for the requested data link. defined in Section 4.1.3.1) for the requested data link.
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
LMP message security uses IPsec as described in [LMP]. This document LMP message security uses IPsec as described in [LMP]. This document
introduces no other new security considerations not covered in introduces no other new security considerations not covered in
[LMP]. [LMP].
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
LMP defines the following name spaces that require management: LMP [LMP] defines the following name spaces and how IANA can make
assignments in those namespaces:
- LMP Message Type. - LMP Message Type.
- LMP Object Class. - LMP Object Class.
- LMP Object Class type (C-Type) unique within the Object Class. - LMP Object Class type (C-Type) unique within the Object Class.
- LMP Sub-object Class type (Type) unique within the Object Class. - LMP Sub-object Class type (Type) unique within the Object Class.
This memo introduces the following name spaces which need This memo introduces the following new assignments:
assignment:
LMP Message Type name space. These should be assigned from the range LMP Message Type:
0-127.
o TraceMonitor message (Message type = TBA) o TraceMonitor message (suggested Message type = 21)
o TraceMonitorAck message (Message type = TBA) o TraceMonitorAck message (suggested Message type = 22)
o TraceMonitorNack message (Message type = TBA) o TraceMonitorNack message (suggested Message type = 23)
o TraceMismatch message (Message type = TBA) o TraceMismatch message (suggested Message type = 24)
o TraceMismatchAck message (Message type = TBA) o TraceMismatchAck message (suggested Message type = 25)
o TraceReq message (Message type = TBA) o TraceReq message (suggested Message type = 26)
o TraceReport message (Message type = TBA) o TraceReport message (suggested Message type = 27)
o TraceReqNack message (Message type = TBA) o TraceReqNack message (suggested Message type = 28)
o InsertTrace message (Message type = TBA) o InsertTrace message (suggested Message type = 29)
o InsertTraceAck message (Message type = TBA) o InsertTraceAck message (suggested Message type = 30)
o InsertTraceNack message (Message type = TBA) o InsertTraceNack message (suggested Message type = 31)
LMP Object Class name space and Class type (C-Type). These values LMP Object Class name space and Class type (C-Type):
should be assigned from the range 0-127.
o TRACE Class name (Class = TBA) o TRACE Class name (suggested = 21)
- Type 1 (suggested C-Type = 1) - Type 1 (suggested C-Type = 1)
o TRACE REQ Class name (Class = TBA) o TRACE REQ Class name (suggested = 22)
- Type 1 (suggested C-Type = 1) - Type 1 (suggested C-Type = 1)
7. Intellectual Property Considerations 7. Intellectual Property Considerations
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
skipping to change at page 13, line 40 skipping to change at page 13, line 40
[BUNDLE] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., Berger, L., "Link Bundling in [BUNDLE] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., Berger, L., "Link Bundling in
MPLS Traffic Engineering," (work in progress). MPLS Traffic Engineering," (work in progress).
[G.707] ITU-T Recommendation G.707, "Network node interface for [G.707] ITU-T Recommendation G.707, "Network node interface for
the synchronous digital hierarchy (SDH)," October 2000. the synchronous digital hierarchy (SDH)," October 2000.
[LMP] Lang, J., ed., "Link Management Protocol (LMP)," (work [LMP] Lang, J., ed., "Link Management Protocol (LMP)," (work
in progress). in progress).
[RFC1662] W. Simpson, ed., "PPP in HDLC-like Framing", IETF RFC [RFC1662] Simpson, W., ed., "PPP in HDLC-like Framing", IETF RFC
1662, STD 51, July 1994. 1662, STD 51, July 1994.
[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, IETF RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, IETF RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3471] L. Berger, ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label [RFC3471] Berger, L., ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description",
IETF RFC 3471, January 2003. IETF RFC 3471, January 2003.
[T1.105] T1.105, "Revised Draft T105 SONET Base Standard," [T1.105] T1.105, "Revised Draft T105 SONET Base Standard,"
January 2001. January 2001.
8.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[LSP-HIER] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., " LSP Hierarchy with [LSP-HIER] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., " LSP Hierarchy with
Generalized MPLS TE," (work in progress). Generalized MPLS TE," (work in progress).
skipping to change at page 14, line 19 skipping to change at page 14, line 19
their many contributions to this document. their many contributions to this document.
We would also like to thank Greg Bernstein and Michiel van We would also like to thank Greg Bernstein and Michiel van
Everdingen for their insightful comments and for acting with a Everdingen for their insightful comments and for acting with a
strong combination of toughness, professionalism, and courtesy. strong combination of toughness, professionalism, and courtesy.
10. Author's Addresses 10. Author's Addresses
Jonathan P. Lang Dimitri Papadimitriou Jonathan P. Lang Dimitri Papadimitriou
Rincon Networks Alcatel Rincon Networks Alcatel
110, El Paseo Francis Wellesplein 1 829 De La Vina, Suite 220 Francis Wellesplein 1
Goleta, CA 93101 B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium Santa Barbara, CA 93101 B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
Email: jplang@ieee.org email: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be Email: jplang@ieee.org email: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be
11. Full Copyright Statement 11. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English. English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
 End of changes. 

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.23, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/