draft-ietf-ccamp-swcaps-update-00.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-swcaps-update-01.txt 
Internet Draft Lou Berger (LabN) Internet Draft Lou Berger
Updates: 3471, 4202, 4203, 5307 Julien Meuric (France Telecom) Updates: 3471, 4202, 4203, 5307 (LabN)
Category: Standards Track Category: Standards Track Julien Meuric
Expiration Date: April 15, 2013 Expiration Date: October 17, 2013 (France Telecom Orange)
October 15, 2012 April 17, 2013
Revised Definition of The GMPLS Switching Capability and Type Fields Revised Definition of The GMPLS Switching Capability and Type Fields
draft-ietf-ccamp-swcaps-update-00.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-swcaps-update-01.txt
Abstract Abstract
GMPLS provides control for multiple switching technologies, and GMPLS provides control for multiple switching technologies, and
hierarchical switching within a technology. GMPLS routing and hierarchical switching within a technology. GMPLS routing and
signaling use common values to indicate switching technology type. signaling use common values to indicate switching technology type.
These values are carried in routing in the Switching Capability These values are carried in routing in the Switching Capability
field, and in signaling in the Switching Type field. While the field, and in signaling in the Switching Type field. While the
values using in these fields are the primary indicators of the values used in these fields are the primary indicators of the
technology and hierarchy level being controlled, the values are technology and hierarchy level being controlled, the values are
not consistently defined and used across the different not consistently defined and used across the different
technologies supported by GMPLS. This document is intended to technologies supported by GMPLS. This document is intended to
resolve the inconsistent definition and use of the Switching resolve the inconsistent definition and use of the Switching
Capability and Type fields by narrowly scoping the meaning and use Capability and Type fields by narrowly scoping the meaning and use
of the fields. This document updates any document that uses the of the fields. This document updates any document that uses the
GMPLS Switching Capability and Types fields, in particular RFC GMPLS Switching Capability and Types fields, in particular RFC
3471, RFC 4202, RFC 4203, and RFC 5307. 3471, RFC 4202, RFC 4203, and RFC 5307.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 51 skipping to change at page 1, line 51
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 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/1id-abstracts.html http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html
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 15, 2013 This Internet-Draft will expire on October 17, 2013
Copyright and License Notice Copyright and License Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 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 respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
skipping to change at page 2, line 36 skipping to change at page 2, line 36
An additional type was also been defined in [RFC6002]. The switching An additional type was also been defined in [RFC6002]. The switching
types defined in these documents include: types defined in these documents include:
1. Packet Switch Capable (PSC) 1. Packet Switch Capable (PSC)
2. Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC) 2. Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC)
3. Time-Division Multiplex Capable (TDM) 3. Time-Division Multiplex Capable (TDM)
4. Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) 4. Lambda Switch Capable (LSC)
5. Fiber-Switch Capable (FSC) 5. Fiber-Switch Capable (FSC)
6. Data Channel Switching Capable (DCSC) 6. Data Channel Switching Capable (DCSC)
Support for the original types was defined for routing in [RFC4202], Support for the original types was defined for routing in [RFC4202],
[RFC4203] and [RFC5307], where the types were represented in the [RFC4203], and [RFC5307], where the types were represented in the
Switching Capability (Switching Cap) field. In general, hierarchy Switching Capability (Switching Cap) field. In general, hierarchy
within a type is addressed in a type-specific fashion and a single within a type is addressed in a type-specific fashion and a single
Switching Capability field value is defined per type. The exception Switching Capability field value is defined per type. The exception
to this is PSC which was assigned four values to indicate four levels to this is PSC which was assigned four values to indicate four levels
of hierarchy: PSC-1, PSC-2, PSC-3 and PSC-4. The same values used in of hierarchy: PSC-1, PSC-2, PSC-3 and PSC-4. The same values used in
routing are defined for signaling in [RFC3471], and are carried in routing are defined for signaling in [RFC3471], and are carried in
the Switching Type field. Following the IANA registry, we refer to the Switching Type field. Following the IANA registry, we refer to
the values used in the routing Switching Capability field and the values used in the routing Switching Capability field and
signaling Switching Type field as Switching Types. signaling Switching Type field as Switching Types.
In general, a Switching Type does not indicate a specific data plane In general, a Switching Type does not indicate a specific data plane
technology, but rather this needs to be inferred from context. For technology, but rather this needs to be inferred from context. For
example L2SC was defined to cover Ethernet and ATM, and TDM was example L2SC was defined to cover Ethernet and ATM, and TDM was
defined to cover both SONET/SDH [RFC4606] and G.709 [RFC4328]. The defined to cover both SONET/SDH [RFC4606] and G.709 [RFC4328]. The
basic assumption was that different technologies of the same type basic assumption was that different technologies of the same type
would never operate within the same control, i.e., signaling and would never operate within the same control, i.e., signaling and
routing, domains. routing, domains.
The past approach in assignment of Switching Types has proven to be The past approach in assignment of Switching Types has proven to be
problematic from two perspectives. The first issue is that there are problematic from two perspectives. The first issue is that some
examples of switching technologies were there are different levels of examples of switching technologies have different levels of switching
switching that can be performed within the same technology. For that can be performed within the same technology. For example, there
example, there are multiple types of Ethernet switching that may are multiple types of Ethernet switching that may occur within a
occur within a provider network. The second issues is that the provider network. The second issues is that the Switching Capability
Switching Capability field value is used in routing to indicate the field value is used in Interior Gateway Protocols (IGPs) to indicate
format of the Switching Capability-specific information (SCSI) field, the format of the Switching Capability-specific information (SCSI)
and that an implicit mapping of type to SCSI format is impractical field, and that an implicit mapping of type to SCSI format is
for implementations that support multiple switching technologies. impractical for implementations that support multiple switching
These issues led to the introduction of two new types for Ethernet in technologies. These issues led to the introduction of two new types
[RFC6004] and [RFC6060], namely: for Ethernet in [RFC6004] and [RFC6060], namely:
7. Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) 7. Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL)
8. 802_1 PBB-TE 8. 802_1 PBB-TE (Provider Backbone Bridge - Traffic Engineering)
An additional value is also envisioned to be assigned in support of An additional value is also envisioned to be assigned in support of
G.709v3 by [GMPLS-G709] in order to disambiguate the format of the G.709v3 by [GMPLS-G709] in order to disambiguate the format of the
SCSI field. SCSI field.
While a common representation of hierarchy levels within a switching While a common representation of hierarchy levels within a switching
technology certainly fits the design objectives of GMPLS, the technology certainly fits the design objectives of GMPLS, the
definition of multiple PSC Switching Types has also proven to be of definition of multiple PSC Switching Types has also proven to be of
little value. Notably, there are no known uses of PSC-2, PSC-3 and little value. Notably, there are no known uses of PSC-2, PSC-3 and
PSC-4. PSC-4.
skipping to change at page 3, line 41 skipping to change at page 3, line 41
deprecating the use of the Switching Types as an identifier of deprecating the use of the Switching Types as an identifier of
hierarchy levels within a switching technology, and limit its use to hierarchy levels within a switching technology, and limit its use to
identification of a per-switching technology SCSI field format. identification of a per-switching technology SCSI field format.
This document updates any document that uses the GMPLS Switching This document updates any document that uses the GMPLS Switching
Capability and Switching Type fields, in particular RFCs 3471, 4202, Capability and Switching Type fields, in particular RFCs 3471, 4202,
4203, and 5307. 4203, and 5307.
1.1. Current Switching Type Definition 1.1. Current Switching Type Definition
The Switching Type values are carried in both routing and signaling. The Switching Type values are carried in both routing and signaling
Values are identified in the IANA GMPLS Signaling Parameters protocols. Values are identified in the IANA GMPLS Signaling
Switching Type registry, which is currently located at Parameters Switching Type registry, which is currently located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters/gmpls-sig- http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters/gmpls-sig-
parameters.xml parameters.xml
For routing, a common information element is defined to carry For routing, a common information element is defined to carry
switching type values for both OSPF and IS-IS routing protocols in switching type values for both OSPF and IS-IS routing protocols in
[RFC4202]. Per [RFC4202], switching type values are carried in a [RFC4202]. Per [RFC4202], switching type values are carried in a
Switching Capability (Switching Cap) field in an Interface Switching Switching Capability (Switching Cap) field in an Interface Switching
Capability Descriptor. This information shares a common formatting Capability Descriptor. This information shares a common formatting
in both OSPF, as defined by [RFC4203] and in IS-IS, as defined by in both OSPF, as defined by [RFC4203], and in IS-IS, as defined by
[RFC5307]: [RFC5307]:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Switching Cap | Encoding | Reserved | | Switching Cap | Encoding | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
... ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Switching Capability-specific information | | Switching Capability-specific information |
| (variable) | | (variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
and and
The content of the Switching Capability specific information field The content of the Switching Capability-specific information field
depends on the value of the Switching Capability field. depends on the value of the Switching Capability field.
Similarly, the Switching Type field is defined as part of a common Similarly, the Switching Type field is defined as part of a common
format for use by GMPLS signaling protocols in [RFC3471] and is used format for use by GMPLS signaling protocols in [RFC3471] and is used
by [RFC3473]: by [RFC3473]:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LSP Enc. Type |Switching Type | G-PID | | LSP Enc. Type |Switching Type | G-PID |
skipping to change at page 5, line 7 skipping to change at page 5, line 7
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. Revised Switching Type Definition 2. Revised Switching Type Definition
This document modifies the definition of Switching Type. The This document modifies the definition of Switching Type. The
definitions are slightly different for routing and signaling and are definitions are slightly different for routing and signaling and are
described in the following sections. described in the following sections.
2.1. Routing -- Switching Cap Field 2.1. Routing -- Switching Cap Field
For routing, i.e., [RFC4202], [RFC4203] and [RFC5307], the following For routing, i.e., [RFC4202], [RFC4203], and [RFC5307], the following
definition should be used for Switching Cap field: definition should be used for Switching Cap field:
The Switching Cap field indicates the type of switching being The Switching Cap field indicates the type of switching being
advertised via GMPLS Switching Type values. A different Switching advertised via GMPLS Switching Type values. A different Switching
Type value SHOULD be used for each data plane technology even when Type value SHOULD be used for each data plane technology even when
those technologies share the same type of multiplexing or those technologies share the same type of multiplexing or
switching. For example, Time Division Multiplexing (TDM) switching. For example, Time Division Multiplexing (TDM)
technologies that have different multiplexing structures, such as technologies that have different multiplexing structures, such as
SDH [G.707] and OTN [G.709], should use two different Switching SDH [G.707] and OTN [G.709], should use two different Switching
Types. Types.
As the format of the Switching Capability specific information As the format of the Switching Capability-specific information
field is dependent on the value of this field, a different field is dependent on the value of this field, a different
Switching Type value MUST be used to differentiate between Switching Type value MUST be used to differentiate between
different Switching Capability specific information field formats. different Switching Capability-specific information field formats.
This definition does not modify the format of the Interface This definition does not modify the format of the Interface
Switching Capability Descriptor. Switching Capability Descriptor.
Note that from a practical standpoint, this means that any time a new Note that from a practical standpoint, this means that any time a new
switching technology might use a different Switching Capability switching technology might use a different Switching Capability-
specific information field format, that a new Switching Type SHOULD specific information field format, that a new Switching Type SHOULD
be used. be used.
2.2. Signaling -- Switching Type Field 2.2. Signaling -- Switching Type Field
For signaling, i.e., [RFC3471] which is used by [RFC3473], the For signaling, i.e., [RFC3471] which is used by [RFC3473], the
following definition should be used for Switching Type field: following definition should be used for Switching Type field:
Indicates the type of switching that should be performed on a Indicates the type of switching that should be performed on a
particular link via GMPLS Switching Type values. This field maps particular link via GMPLS Switching Type values. This field maps
skipping to change at page 8, line 47 skipping to change at page 9, line 9
[RFC6060] Fedyk, D., Shah, H., Bitar, N., Takacs, A., "Generalized [RFC6060] Fedyk, D., Shah, H., Bitar, N., Takacs, A., "Generalized
Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Control of Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Control of
Ethernet Provider Backbone Traffic Engineering Ethernet Provider Backbone Traffic Engineering
(PBB-TE)", RFC 6060, March 2011. (PBB-TE)", RFC 6060, March 2011.
8. Authors' Addresses 8. Authors' Addresses
Lou Berger Lou Berger
LabN Consulting, L.L.C. LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Phone: +1-301-468-9228 Phone: +1 301 468 9228
Email: lberger@labn.net Email: lberger@labn.net
Julien Meuric Julien Meuric
France Telecom France Telecom Orange
Research & Development Research & Development
2, avenue Pierre Marzin 2, Avenue Pierre Marzin
22307 Lannion Cedex - France 22307 Lannion Cedex - France
Phone: +33 2 96 05 28 28 Phone: +33 2 96 05 28 28
Email: julien.meuric@orange.com Email: julien.meuric@orange.com
Generated on: Mon, Oct 15, 2012 6:31:34 PM Generated on: Wed, Apr 17, 2013 5:20:51 PM
 End of changes. 21 change blocks. 
34 lines changed or deleted 35 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/