Internet DRAFT - draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions
draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions
Internet Draft Bala Rajagopalan
draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-04.txt Tellium, Inc.
Expiration : July, 23, 2003
LDP and RSVP Extensions for Optical UNI Signaling
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress".
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Abstract
The Optical Interworking Forum (OIF) has defined extensions to the
Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) and the Resource reServation
Protocol (RSVP) for optical User Network Interface (UNI) signaling.
These extensions consist of a set of new data objects and error codes.
This document describes these extensions.
1. Introduction
The OIF UNI signaling specification is described in [8]. This
specification utilizes IETF protocol standards as well as IETF work
in progress. Specifically, the following IETF specifications are
used:
o Label distribution protocol (LDP) [6]
o Resource reservation protocol (RSVP) [5]
o GMPLS signaling and GMPLS extensions for SONET/SDH [4]
o GMPLS RSVP-TE and CR-LDP extensions [2, 3]
Page 1 of 8
draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-04.txt
The aim of the OIF UNI specification is the maximal re-use of IETF
protocol definitions. A few extensions to IETF protocols, however,
have been defined to serve UNI-specific needs. These extensions are
described in this document.
2. LDP Extensions for UNI Signaling
The LDP extensions for UNI signaling consist of
new TLVs that capture UNI-specific parameters and new UNI-specific
status codes. The new TLVs are Source ID (3 TLVs), Destination ID (3
TLVs), Egress Label, Local Connection ID, Diversity, Contract ID,
and UNI Service Level [8]. These are described below. The new
status codes are assigned from the private use space of LDP codes,
as described in [8].
2.1 Source ID TLVs
Three TLVs are defined for Source ID. These are encoded as:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|F|Source ID Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Contents ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The three possible Source ID Types are:
Ipv4: Type = 0x0960 (TBA)
Ipv6: Type = 0x0961 (TBA)
NSAP: Type = 0x0962 (TBA)
The content and usage of these TLVs are described in [8].
Expires on 7/23/03 Page 2 of 8
draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-04.txt
2.2 Destination ID TLVs
Three TLVs are defined for Destination ID. These are encoded as:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|F|Dest ID Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Contents ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The three possible Dest ID Types are:
Ipv4: Type = 0x0963 (TBA)
Ipv6: Type = 0x0964 (TBA)
NSAP: Type = 0x0965 (TBA)
The content and usage of these TLVs are described in [8].
2.3 Egress Label TLV
The Egress Label TLV is encoded as:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|F|Egress Label (0x966, TBA) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Contents ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The content and usage of this TLV are described in [8].
Expires on 7/23/03 Page 3 of 8
draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-04.txt
2.4 Local Connection ID TLV
The Local Connection ID TLV is encoded as:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|F|Local Conn. ID (0x967, TBA)| Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Contents ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The content and usage of this TLV are described in [8].
2.5 Diversity TLV
The Diversity TLV is encoded as:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|F|Diversity (0x968, TBA) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Contents ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The content and usage of this TLV are described in [8].
2.6 Contract ID TLV
The Contract ID TLV is encoded as:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|F|Contract ID (0x969, TBA) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Contents ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The content and usage of this TLV are described in [8].
Expires on 7/23/03 Page 4 of 8
draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-04.txt
2.7 UNI Service Level TLV
The UNI Service Level TLV is encoded as:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|F|Service Level (0x970, TBA) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Contents ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The content and usage of this TLV are described in [8].
3. RSVP Extensions for UNI Signaling
A single new object class, called "Generalized_UNI" is defined. In
addition, extension to the RSVP session object and new UNI-specific
error codes are defined. These are described below.
3.1 Generalized_UNI Object
The GENERALIZED_UNI object has the following format:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length (>8) | CNum(229, TBA)| C-Type (1) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// (Subobjects) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Subobjects:
The contents of a GENERALIZED_UNI object are a series of variable-
length data items. The common format of the sub-objects is shown
below:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | Type | Sub-Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Value //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The following sub-objects are defined. The contents of these sub-
objects are described in [8]:
- Source Transport Network Assigned (TNA) Address sub-object:
Type = 1. The following sub-types are defined:
Expires on 7/23/03 Page 5 of 8
draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-04.txt
Ipv4 (Sub-type = 1);
Ipv6 (Sub-type = 2);
NSAP (Sub-type = 3).
- Destination TNA Address sub-object: Type = 2;
The following sub-types are defined:
Ipv4 (Sub-type = 1);
Ipv6 (Sub-type = 2);
NSAP (Sub-type = 3).
- Diversity sub-object: Type = 3, Sub-type = 1.
- Egress label sub-object: Type = 4, Sub-type = 1.
- Service level sub-object: Type = 5, Sub-type = 1.
3.2 UNI_Ipv4_Session Object
This object [7] has the following format:
UNI_ IPv4_SESSION object: Class = 1, C-Type = 11 (TBA)
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length (16) | Class-Num(1) |C-Type (11,TBA)|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MUST be zero | Tunnel ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Extended IPv4 Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The C-Type value (to be assigned) will distinguish UNI-related RSVP
Sessions from other RSVP sessions. The usage of this object is
described in [8].
3.3 Error Codes
UNI-specific errors fall under the "Routing Problem" (error code =
24) [7] and "Policy Control Failure" (error code = 2) [5]
errors, and they require the assignment of sub-codes. The
following is the list of errors and proposed assignments of sub-
codes:
- Routing Problem: Diversity not available (Error code = 24, sub-
code = 100)
- Routing Problem: Service level not available (Error code = 24,
sub-code = 101)
- Routing problem: Invalid/Unknown connection ID (Error code = 24,
sub-code = 102)
- Policy control failure: Unauthorized sender (Error code = 2, sub-
code = 100)
Expires on 7/23/03 Page 6 of 8
draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-04.txt
- Policy control failure: Unauthorized receiver (Error code = 2,
sub-code = 101)
4. IANA Considerations
The OIF UNI 1.0 specification defines new objects and
error codes under LDP and RSVP. Majority of these extensions
require code point assignments via IETF consensus action. These are
summarized below.
4.1 LDP Messages, TLVs and Status Codes
Proposed TLV types 0x0960 - 0x0970 as described in Sections 2.1 -
2.7 above.
UNI-specific status codes have been allocated out of the Private Use
space, i.e., 0x3Fxxxxxx. These do not require IANA administration.
4.2 RSVP Object Class and Error Codes
Proposed Generalized_UNI object class (Section 3.1), Class Number
229 (TBA), C-Type 1 (TBA). Further sub-objects are defined, with
Type numbers 1-5 and various Sub-Type numbers, as described in
Section 3.1. The code points for the Generalized_UNI object and
the associated sub-objects require IANA administration.
Proposed UNI_Ipv4_Session Object (Class-Num = 1, C-Type = 11 (TBA)),
as described in Section 3.2.
UNI-specific errors fall under the Routing Problem and Policy
Control Failure errors (error codes 24 and 2). Proposed sub-codes
under error code 24 are 100, 101 and 102, as described in Section
3.3. Proposed sub-codes under error code 2 are 100 and 101, as
described in Section 3.3.
5. Security Considerations
Security considerations related to RSVP, RSVP-TE and LDP are
described in Section 2.8, Section 6 and Section 5 of RFCs
2205 [5], 3209 [9] and 3036 [6], respectively. Security
considerations pertaining to UNI signaling using the
extensions described in this draft and how these relate
to the security aspects of RSVP, RSVP-TE and LDP are
described in Section 13.4 of the UNI specification [8].
6. References
[1] P. Ashwood-Smith, et al., "Generalized MPLS - Signaling
Functional Description", Internet Draft, Work in Progress.
[2] P. Ashwood-Smith, et al., "Generalized MPLS - RSVP-
TE Extensions", Internet Draft, Work in Progress.
[3] P. Ashwood-Smith, et al., "Generalized MPLS - CR-LDP
Extensions", Internet Draft, Work in Progress.
Expires on 7/23/03 Page 7 of 8
draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-04.txt
[4] E. Mannie, et al., "GMPLS Extensions for SONET and SDH
Control," Internet Draft, Work in Progress.
[5] R. Braden, et al, "RSVP Functional Specification", RFC 2205.
[6] L. Andersson, et al., "LDP Specification", RFC 3036.
[7] D. Awduche, et al., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels," RFC 3209.
[8] UNI 1.0 Signaling Specification, The Optical Internetworking
Forum, http://www.oiforum.com/public/UNI_1.0_ia.html
7. Author Information
Bala Rajagopalan
Tellium, Inc.
2 Crescent Place
Ocean Port, NJ 07757
Ph: +1-732-923-4237
Email: braja@tellium.com
Expires on 7/23/03 Page 8 of 8
