| Rfc | 3476 |
|---|
| Title | Documentation of IANA Assignments for Label Distribution Protocol
(LDP), Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP), and Resource
ReSerVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions for
Optical UNI Signaling |
|---|
| Author | B. Rajagopalan |
|---|
| Date | March 2003 |
|---|
| Format: | TXT,
HTML |
|---|
| Updated by | RFC3468 |
|---|
| Status: | INFORMATIONAL |
|---|
|
Network Working Group B. Rajagopalan
Request for Comments: 3476 Tellium, Inc.
Category: Informational March 2003
Documentation of IANA Assignments for Label Distribution Protocol
(LDP), Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP), and Resource ReSerVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions
for Optical UNI Signaling
Status of this Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
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]
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]. The
UNI specification [8] also defines two new LDP messages, Status
Enquiry and Status Response. These messages have been obsoleted and
hence no code points are requested in this document for them.
2.1 Source ID TLVs
Three TLVs have been defined to encode the Source ID. The content and
usage of these TLVs are described in [8].
2.1.1 IPv4 Source ID
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 (0x0960) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Contents ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
2.1.2 IPv6 Source ID
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 (0x0961) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Contents ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
2.1.3 NSAP Source ID
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 (0x0962) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Contents ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
2.2 Destination ID TLVs
Three TLVs have been defined to encode the Destination ID. The
content and usage of these TLVs are described in [8].
2.2.1 IPv4 Destination ID
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 (0x0963) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Contents ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
2.2.2 IPv6 Destination ID
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 (0x0964) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Contents ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
2.2.3 NSAP Destination ID
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 (0x0965) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Contents ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Contents ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The content and usage of this TLV are described in [8].
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) | 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) | 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) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Contents ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The content and usage of this TLV are described in [8].
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) | 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) | 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:
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
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) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MUST be zero | Tunnel ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Extended IPv4 Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The C-Type value (11) 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)
- 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. The majority of these extensions require code
point assignments via IETF consensus action. These are summarized
below.
4.1 LDP Messages, TLVs and Status Codes
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
Generalized_UNI object class (Section 3.1), Class Number 229, C-Type
1. 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.
UNI_Ipv4_Session Object (Class-Num = 1, C-Type = 11), as described in
Section 3.2.
UNI-specific errors fall under the Routing Problem and Policy Control
Failure errors (error codes 24 and 2). Sub-codes under error code 24
are 100, 101 and 102, as described in Section 3.3. 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
document 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] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, January 2003.
[2] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
[3] Ashwood-Smith, P. and L. Berger, Editors, "Generalized Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Signaling Constraint-based Routed
Label Distribution Protocol (CR-LDP) Extensions", RFC 3472,
January 2003.
[4] E. Mannie, et al., "GMPLS Extensions for SONET and SDH Control",
Work in Progress.
[5] Braden, R., Editor, Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S. and S.
Jamin, "RSVP Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.
[6] Andersson, L., Doolan, P., Feldman, N., Fredette, A. and B.
Thomas, "LDP Specification", RFC 3036, January 2001.
[7] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V. and G.
Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209,
December 2001.
[8] UNI 1.0 Signaling Specification, The Optical Internetworking
Forum, http://www.oiforum.com/public/UNI_1.0_ia.html
7. Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in RFC 2028.
Copies of claims of rights made available for publication and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementors or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.
8. Author's Address
Bala Rajagopalan
Tellium, Inc.
2 Crescent Place
Ocean Port, NJ 07757
Phone: +1-732-923-4237
EMail: braja@tellium.com
8. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.