RFC 6004
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support for Metro Ethernet Forum and G.8011 Ethernet Service Switching
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support for Metro Ethernet Forum and G.8011 Ethernet Service Switching ✨
Okay bestie, let's talk about RFC 6004 🎀 It's a Standards Track document, so it's an official IETF standard, not just a suggestion 💅 It was written by L. Berger from LabN and D. Fedyk from Alcatel-Lucent 🦋 and it dropped in October 2010. Its ISSN is 2070-1721. Its title block doesn't list anything it obsoletes or updates, so it's not replacing or patching any older RFCs 🌸
Abstract 💜
So this doc is about controlling two specific kinds of Ethernet switching using Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) 🧚 The switching it covers matches the Ethernet services defined by the Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in G.8011. Specifically, it covers switching for Ethernet private line and Ethernet virtual private line services. It also covers the parameters that MEF and ITU define for those services ✨
Status of This Memo 🌈
This is an Internet Standards Track document. ⭐
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It went through public review and got approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). If you want more info on Internet Standards, check out Section 2 of RFC 5741 📚
For the current status of this document, any errata, and how to send feedback, go to http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6004 🔗
Copyright Notice 🎀
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. 🫶
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) as they stand on the date this document was published. Please read these carefully, because they spell out your rights and restrictions for this document 👀 Any Code Components pulled out of this document must include Simplified BSD License text, as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions. They come without warranty, as described in the Simplified BSD License 💖
Table of Contents 🍓
1. Introduction ....................................................3
1.1. Overview ...................................................3
1.2. Conventions Used in This Document ..........................4
2. Common Signaling Support ........................................5
2.1. Ethernet Endpoint Identification ...........................5
2.1.1. Endpoint ID TLV .....................................5
2.1.1.1. Procedures .................................6
2.2. Connection Identification ..................................6
2.2.1. Procedures ..........................................6
2.3. Traffic Parameters .........................................7
2.3.1. L2 Control Protocol TLV .............................7
2.4. Bundling and VLAN Identification ...........................9
3. EPL Service .....................................................9
3.1. EPL Service Parameters .....................................9
4. EVPL Service ...................................................10
4.1. EVPL Generalized Label Format .............................10
4.2. Egress VLAN ID Control and VLAN ID Preservation ...........11
4.3. Single Call - Single LSP ..................................11
4.4. Single Call - Multiple LSPs ...............................11
5. IANA Considerations ............................................12
5.1. Endpoint ID Attributes TLV ................................12
5.2. Line LSP Encoding .........................................12
5.3. Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) Switching Type .......12
6. Security Considerations ........................................13
7. References .....................................................13
7.1. Normative References ......................................13
7.2. Informative References ....................................14
Acknowledgments ...................................................141. Introduction ✨
[MEF6] and [G.8011] are two parallel frameworks for describing the network-oriented characteristics of Ethernet services in transport networks 🦋 The framework covers general Ethernet connection characteristics, Ethernet User-Network Interfaces (UNIs), and Ethernet Network-Network Interfaces (NNIs). Inside that framework, [G.8011.1] defines the Ethernet Private Line (EPL) service and [G.8011.2] defines the Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) service. [MEF6] covers both service types. [MEF10.1] defines the service parameters, and [MEF11] provides the UNI requirements and framework 📚
[MEF6] and [G.8011] focus on service interfaces, not on the underlying technology that actually carries the service 🌸 For example, [G.8011] says the defined services can be transported over one of several possible "server layers". This document zooms in on the types of switching that may directly support these services, and it gives a method for GMPLS-based control of that switching technology 🧚 It defines the GMPLS extensions needed to support that switching, but it does NOT define the UNI or External NNI (E-NNI) reference points. For a description of the UNI reference point, see [RFC6005]. This document uses the traffic parameters defined in [RFC6003] and the generic extensions defined in [RFC6002] 💅
1.1. Overview 🌈
This document takes one common approach to supporting the switching that matches the Ethernet services defined in [MEF6], [G.8011.1], and [G.8011.2]. The approach builds on standard GMPLS mechanisms to deliver the control capabilities that are needed 🔥 It reuses the GMPLS mechanisms specified in [RFC3473] and [RFC4974], and it uses the extensions defined in [RFC6002] 💜
Two types of connectivity between Ethernet endpoints are defined in [MEF6] and [G.8011]: point-to-point (P2P) and multipoint-to-multipoint (MP2MP) 🦋 [MEF6] uses the term Ethernet Line (E-line) for point-to-point virtual connections, and Ethernet LAN (E-LAN) for multipoint-to-multipoint virtual connections. [G.8011] also lists point-to-multipoint (P2MP) as an area for "further study" 👀 Within GMPLS, support is defined for point-to-point unidirectional and bidirectional Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs), see [RFC3473], and for unidirectional point-to-multipoint TE LSPs, see [RFC4875] ✨
Support for P2P and MP2MP services is defined by [G.8011] and required by [MEF11]. Here's the tea ☕ While [MEF11] and [G.8011] both discuss MP2MP, [G.8011.1] and [G.8011.2] only define support for P2P. E-Line maps cleanly onto GMPLS P2P TE LSPs, so support for those LSPs is in scope for this document 🎀 E-LAN/MP2MP service doesn't have that clean match with GMPLS TE LSPs. You could fake this service with multiple P2P or P2MP TE LSPs, but defining real support for MP2MP service is left for future study, so this document doesn't cover it 🙈
[MEF11] defines several types of control for UNI Ethernet services. In MEF UNI Type 1, services are configured manually. In MEF UNI Type 2, services may be configured manually or through a link management interface. In MEF UNI Type 3, services may be established and managed through a signaling interface. From the MEF point of view, this document, along with [RFC6005], is aimed at the network control needed to support the MEF UNI Type 3 mode of operation 💖
[G.8011.1], [G.8011.2], and [MEF11], together with [MEF10.1], define a set of service attributes that go with each Ethernet connection 🧚 Some of these attributes come from how the local physical connection is provisioned, and they can't be changed or selected per connection. Other attributes are specific to a particular connection or have to stay consistent across the connection. This document handles that by leaving the static class of attributes out of signaling. That class won't be discussed explicitly in this document. The other class is communicated via signaling, and it gets reviewed in the sections below. The major attributes that will be supported in signaling include:
- Endpoint identifiers
- Connection identifiers
- Traffic parameters (see [RFC6003])
- Bundling / VLAN IDs map (EVPL only)
- VLAN ID Preservation (EVPL only)
Common procedures used to support Ethernet LSPs are described in Section 2 of this document. Procedures for signaling switching that supports EPL services are described in Section 3. Procedures for signaling switching that supports EVPL services are described in Section 4 🫶
1.2. Conventions Used in This Document 💅
Okay, the key words are the important part 🔑 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]. Read them with that meaning in mind 🙏
2. Common Signaling Support 🦋
This section describes the common mechanisms for supporting GMPLS signaled control of LSPs that provide Ethernet connections, as defined in [MEF11], [G.8011.1], and [G.8011.2] 🌸
Unless this document specifically changes something, the procedures for processing RSVP objects are NOT modified by this document. The relevant procedures in existing documents, such as [RFC3473], MUST be followed in all cases that this document doesn't explicitly describe 💜
2.1. Ethernet Endpoint Identification 🎀
Ethernet endpoint identifiers, as defined in [G.8011] and [MEF10.1], are very different from the identifiers GMPLS uses 😭 Specifically, Ethernet endpoint identifiers are character based, while the GMPLS norm is IP address based.
This document handles that mismatch by building on the solution used for connection identification (see Section 2.2 and [RFC4974]), plus a new CALL_ATTRIBUTES TLV defined in this document 🧚 The solution uses the short Call ID from [RFC4974], and it supports the Ethernet endpoint identifier in a similar way to how [RFC4974] supports the long Call ID. That means the SENDER_TEMPLATE and SESSION objects carry IP addresses and a short Call ID, and the long identifiers are carried in the CALL_ATTRIBUTES object. Just like the long Call ID, the Ethernet endpoint identifier is typically only relevant at the ingress and egress nodes 👑
As defined below, the Ethernet endpoint identifier is carried in the CALL_ATTRIBUTES object, in a new TLV. That new TLV is called the Endpoint ID TLV. Processing of the Endpoint ID TLV parallels processing of the long Call ID in [RFC4974]. This processing requires the CALL_ATTRIBUTES object to be included in a Notify message 🔥
2.1.1. Endpoint ID TLV ✨
okay so the Endpoint ID TLV follows the Attributes TLV format from [RFC6001] 🎀 here's what the layout looks like:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (30) | Length (variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Endpoint ID |
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+the Type and Length fields come straight from [RFC6001] 💖 and the tea here is that the Length field counts the whole TLV, so the Type, Length, and Endpoint ID fields all get included in that number 🙈
Endpoint ID
the Endpoint ID field is variable-size and carries an endpoint identifier, see [MEF10.1] and [G.8011] 🦋 this field MUST be null padded as defined in [RFC6001] 💅
2.1.1.1. Procedures 👑
the Endpoint ID TLV is required during Call management 🌸 when a Call gets established or torn down per [RFC4974], a CALL_ATTRIBUTES object containing an Endpoint ID TLV MUST be included in the Notify message along with the long Call ID ✨
and bestie, the Short Call ID stuff is NOT changed by this document 🫶 all of that Call and connection processing MUST proceed according to [RFC4974] 💜
2.2. Connection Identification 🦋
signaling for Ethernet connections follows the procedures in [RFC4974] 💅 the Call-related mechanisms are what get used for endpoint identification, which is giving main character energy 👑 for Ethernet connections, a Call only gets established when one or more LSPs (connections in [RFC4974] terms) are needed 🧚 an LSP is always set up within the context of a Call, and usually only one LSP gets used per Call ✨ see Section 4.4 for the case where more than one LSP may exist within a Call 💖
2.2.1. Procedures 🎀
any node that supports Ethernet connections MUST be able to accept and process Call setups per [RFC4974] 🫶 Ethernet connections set up under this document MUST treat the Ethernet (virtual) connection identifier as the long "Call identifier (ID)" from [RFC4974] 💅 the short Call ID MUST be used as described in [RFC4974] 🌈 using the LINK_CAPABILITY object is OPTIONAL 🍓 and both network-initiated and user-initiated Calls MUST be supported ✨
when you're establishing an Ethernet connection, the initiator MUST first establish a Call per the procedures in [RFC4974] 🦋 then LSP management (removal and addition included) follows [RFC4974] too 💜 as [RFC4974] says, once a Call is established the initiator SHOULD establish at least one Ethernet LSP 🔥 and when the last LSP attached to a Call is removed, the Call SHOULD be torn down per the procedures in [RFC4974] 😭
2.3. Traffic Parameters 💅
several types of service attributes ride along in the traffic parameters from [RFC6003] 🌸 these parameters get carried in the FLOWSPEC and TSPEC objects, as discussed in [RFC6003] 🫶 the service attributes that get carried are:
- Bandwidth Profile
- VLAN Class of Service (CoS) Preservation
- Layer 2 Control Protocol (L2CP) Processing (see Section 2.3.1)
Ethernet connections set up under this document MUST use the traffic parameters defined in [RFC6003] in the FLOWSPEC and TSPEC objects 💖 and on top of that, the Switching Granularity field of the Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object MUST be set to zero (0) 🎀
2.3.1. L2 Control Protocol TLV 🧚
okay so [MEF10.1], [G.8011.1], and [G.8011.2] define service attributes that affect layer two (L2) control protocol processing at the ingress and egress ✨ [RFC6003] doesn't define support for these attributes, but it does let them ride inside a TLV 🦋 this section defines the L2CP TLV to carry those L2CP-processing-related service attributes 💜
the L2 Control Protocol (L2CP) TLV looks like this:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type=3 | Length=8 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IL2CP | EL2CP | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+see [RFC6003] for a description of the Type and Length fields 💅 and per [RFC6003], the Type field MUST be set to three (3), and the Length field MUST be set to eight (8) for the L2CP TLV 🌈
Ingress Layer 2 Control Processing (IL2CP): 4 bits
this field controls how Layer 2 Control Protocols get processed on a receiving interface 🫶 valid usage is service specific, see [MEF10.1], [G.8011.1], and [G.8011.2] 🔥
permitted values are:
Value Description Reference
----- ----------- ---------
0 Reserved
1 Discard/Block [MEF10.1], [G.8011.1], and [G.8011.2]
2 Peer/Process [MEF10.1], [G.8011.1], and [G.8011.2]
3 Pass to EVC/Pass [MEF10.1], [G.8011.1], and [G.8011.2]
4 Peer and Pass to EVC [MEF10.1]Egress Layer 2 Control Processing (EL2CP): 4 bits
this field controls how Layer 2 Control Protocols get processed on a transmitting interface 💖 when MEF services are used, a value of 1 MUST be used 🍓 other valid usage is service specific, see [G.8011.1] and [G.8011.2] 💜
permitted values are:
Value Description Reference
----- ----------- ---------
0 Reserved
1 Based on IL2CP Value [MEF10.1]
2 Generate [G.8011.1] and [G.8011.2]
3 None [G.8011.1] and [G.8011.2]
4 ReservedReserved: 24 bits
this field is reserved 🎀 it MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt 🙈 this field SHOULD be passed unmodified by transit nodes 🦋
Ethernet connections set up under this document MUST include the L2CP TLV in the [RFC6003] traffic parameters carried in the FLOWSPEC and TSPEC objects ✨
2.4. Bundling and VLAN Identification 🌸
the control of bundling and listing of VLAN identifiers is only supported for EVPL services 🫶 the EVPL-specific details are in Section 4 💅
3. EPL Service 🧚
both [MEF6] and [G.8011.1] define an Ethernet Private Line (EPL) service 🦋 in the words of [G.8011.1], EPL services carry "Ethernet characteristic information over dedicated bandwidth, point-to-point connections, provided by SDH, ATM, MPLS, PDH, ETY or OTH server layer networks" 💜 [G.8011.1] defines two types of Ethernet Private Line (EPL) services 🔥 both types present a service where all data presented on a port is transported to the corresponding connected port 👑 the difference is that EPL type 1 service operates at the MAC frame layer, while EPL type 2 service operates at the line (e.g., 8B/10B) encoding layer 🌈 [MEF6] only defines one type of EPL service, and it matches the [G.8011.1] EPL type 1 service 💖 signaling for LSPs that support both types of EPL services is detailed below ✨
3.1. EPL Service Parameters 💅
signaling for the EPL service types only differs in the LSP Encoding Type used 🎀 the LSP Encoding Type used for each is:
EPL Service LSP Encoding Type (Value) Reference
----------- ------------------------- ---------
Type 1/MEF Ethernet (2) [RFC3471]
Type 2 Line (e.g., 8B/10B)(14) [RFC6004]the other LSP parameters specific to EPL Service are:
Parameter Name (Value) Reference
-------------- ----------------- ------------------
Switching Type DCSC (125) [RFC6002]
G-PID Ethernet PHY (33) [RFC3471][RFC4328]the parameters defined in this section MUST be used when establishing and controlling LSPs that provide EPL service type Ethernet switching 🫶 the procedures defined in Section 2 and the other procedures defined in [RFC3473] for establishing and managing bidirectional LSPs MUST be followed when establishing and controlling LSPs that provide EPL service type Ethernet switching 🔥
4. EVPL Service 🦋
EVPL service is defined within the context of both [G.8011.2] and [MEF6] 🌸 EVPL service allows multiple Ethernet connections per port, and each one supports a specific set of VLAN IDs 💖 the service attributes identify different forms of EVPL services, e.g., bundled or unbundled 🧚 independent of those forms, LSPs supporting EVPL Ethernet type switching get signaled using the same mechanisms to communicate the one or more VLAN IDs associated with a particular LSP (Ethernet connection) ✨
the relevant [RFC3471] parameter values that MUST be used for EVPL connections are:
Parameter Name (Value) Reference
-------------- ----------------- ------------------
Switching Type EVPL (30) [RFC6004]
LSP Encoding Type Ethernet (2) [RFC3471]
G-PID Ethernet PHY (33) [RFC3471][RFC4328]as with EPL, the procedures defined in Section 2 and the other procedures defined in [RFC3473] for establishing and managing bidirectional LSPs MUST be followed when establishing and controlling LSPs that provide EVPL service type Ethernet switching 💅
LSPs that provide EVPL service type Ethernet switching MUST use the EVPL Generalized Label Format per Section 4.1, and the Generalized Channel_Set Label Objects per [RFC6002] 🌈 a notable implication of bundled EVPL services and carrying multiple VLAN IDs is that a Path message may grow to be larger than a single (fragmented or non-fragmented) IP packet 😭 the basic fix is to allow multiple LSPs associated with a single Call, see Section 2.2 🎀 the specifics of that approach are described below in Section 4.4 🫶
4.1. EVPL Generalized Label Format 🌸
bundled EVPL services require a service-specific label, called the EVPL Generalized Label 💖 for consistency, non-bundled EVPL services use the same label too ✨
the format for the Generalized Label (Label Type value 2) used with EVPL services is:
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Rsvd | VLAN ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+Reserved: 4 bits
this field is reserved 🍓 it MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt 🙈 this field SHOULD be passed unmodified by transit nodes 🦋
VLAN ID: 12 bits
a VLAN identifier 🧚
4.2. Egress VLAN ID Control and VLAN ID Preservation 💜
when an EVPL service is not configured for both bundling and VLAN ID preservation, [MEF6] allows VLAN ID mapping 🔥 in particular, the single VLAN ID used at the incoming interface of the ingress may be mapped to a different VLAN ID at the outgoing interface at the egress UNI 👑 such mapping MUST be requested and signaled based on the explicit label control mechanism defined in [RFC3473] and clarified in [RFC4003] 🌈
when the explicit label control mechanism is not used, VLAN IDs MUST be preserved, i.e., not modified, across an LSP 💖
4.3. Single Call - Single LSP ✨
okay so for simplicity in management (bestie, we love easy 🧚), a single LSP SHOULD be used for each EVPL type LSP whose Path and Resv messages fit within a single unfragmented IP packet. This lets you reuse all the standard LSP modification procedures 💅. The big one to know about is changing the VLAN IDs on the Ethernet connection. Specifically, [RFC6002], make-before-break procedures SHOULD be used to modify the Channel_Set LABEL object 🦋.
4.4. Single Call - Multiple LSPs 🌸
multiple LSPs are giving "we're not limited to one" energy 💖. Multiple LSPs MAY be used to support an EVPL service connection. All such LSPs MUST be established within the same Call and follow the Call-related procedures, see Section 2.2 🎀. The main reason to go multi-LSP is when the related objects make a Path message too big to fit in a single unfragmented IP packet 📦.
When you're using multiple LSPs, all the LSPs tied to the same Call/EVPL connection MUST be signaled with the same LSP objects, except for SENDER_TEMPLATE, SESSION, and the label-related objects 🫶. All of them SHOULD share resources ✨. Also, VLAN IDs MAY be added to the EVPL connection using either a new LSP or make-before-break procedures, see [RFC3209] 🌈. And when it's time to remove VLAN IDs, make-before-break procedures on individual LSPs SHOULD be used 🙈.
💀 Heads up: if you want to change any other service parameters, you have to re-signal all the LSPs for the Call using make-before-break procedures. No shortcuts, bestie.
5. IANA Considerations 👑
IANA has assigned new values for the namespaces defined in this document, and they're summarized in this section 🍓. The registries are available at http://www.iana.org.
5.1. Endpoint ID Attributes TLV 🧚
IANA dropped a new assignment in the "Call Attributes TLV" section of the "RSVP Parameters" registry 💜.
Type Name Reference
---- ----------- ---------
2 Endpoint ID [RFC6004]5.2. Line LSP Encoding 🌈
IANA also made an assignment in the "LSP Encoding Types" section of the "GMPLS Signaling Parameters" registry ⭐.
Value Type Reference
----- --------------------------- ---------
14 Line (e.g., 8B/10B) [RFC6004]5.3. Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) Switching Type 🦋
And one more for the "Switching Types" section of the "GMPLS Signaling Parameters" registry 🔥.
Value Type Reference
----- ------------------------------------ ---------
30 Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) [RFC6004]The assigned value has also been reflected in IANAGmplsSwitchingTypeTC of the IANA-GMPLS-TC-MIB, which you can grab from http://www.iana.org 💅.
6. Security Considerations 🔐
💀 This one is serious, bestie, so read it carefully.
This document introduces new message object formats for use in GMPLS signaling [RFC3473] 🫶. It does not introduce any new signaling messages, and it doesn't change the relationship between Label Switching Routers (LSRs) that are adjacent in the control plane 🙈. As such, this document introduces no additional security considerations beyond the ones discussed in [RFC3473] 🔒.
7. References ✨
7.1. Normative References 📚
- [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
- [RFC3209] 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.
- [RFC3471] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, January 2003.
- [RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
- [RFC4003] Berger, L., "GMPLS Signaling Procedure for Egress Control", RFC 4003, February 2005.
- [RFC4974] Papadimitriou, D. and A. Farrel, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in Support of Calls", RFC 4974, August 2007.
- [RFC6001] Papadimitriou, D., Vigoureux, M., Shiomoto, K., Brungard, D. and JL. Le Roux, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Protocol Extensions for Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks (MLN/MRN)", RFC 6001, October 2010.
- [RFC6002] Berger, L. and D. Fedyk, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Data Channel Switching Capable (DCSC) and Channel Set Label Extensions", RFC 6002, October 2010.
- [RFC6003] Papadimitriou, D., "Ethernet Traffic Parameters," RFC 6003, October 2010.
7.2. Informative References 🦋
- [G.8011] ITU-T G.8011/Y.1307, "Ethernet over Transport Ethernet services framework", August 2004.
- [G.8011.1] ITU-T G.G.8011.1/Y.1307.1, "Ethernet private line service", August 2004.
- [G.8011.2] ITU-T G.8011.2/Y.1307.2, "Ethernet virtual private line service", September 2005.
- [MEF6] The Metro Ethernet Forum, "Ethernet Services Definitions - Phase I", MEF 6, June 2004.
- [MEF10.1] The Metro Ethernet Forum, "Ethernet Services Attributes Phase 2", MEF 10.1, November 2006.
- [MEF11] The Metro Ethernet Forum, "User Network Interface (UNI) Requirements and Framework", MEF 11, November 2004.
- [RFC4328] Papadimitriou, D., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328, January 2006.
- [RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Ed., and S. Yasukawa, Ed., "Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875, May 2007.
- [RFC6005] Berger, L. and D. Fedyk, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support for Metro Ethernet Forum and G.8011 User Network Interface (UNI)", RFC 6005, October 2010.
Acknowledgments 💖
Dimitri Papadimitriou provided substantial textual contributions to this document and coauthored earlier versions of it 🫶. The authors would like to thank Evelyne Roch, Stephen Shew, and Yoav Cohen for their valuable comments 🌸.
Authors' Addresses 🎀
Lou Berger
LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Phone: +1-301-468-9228
EMail: lberger@labn.net
Don Fedyk
Alcatel-Lucent
Groton, MA 01450
Phone: +1-978-467-5645
EMail: donald.fedyk@alcatel-lucent.com📦 where this page comes from
- ietf: rfc6004 2010-10
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms