RFC 6005
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support for Metro Ethernet Forum and G.8011 User Network Interface (UNI)
RFC 6005: Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support for Metro Ethernet Forum and G.8011 User Network Interface (UNI) 🦋
- Number and title: RFC 6005, Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support for Metro Ethernet Forum and G.8011 User Network Interface (UNI)
- Authors: L. Berger (LabN) and D. Fedyk (Alcatel-Lucent)
- Category: Standards Track
- Date: October 2010
- ISSN: 2070-1721
- Obsoletes / Updates: The header lists neither, so this one doesn't replace or change any earlier RFC 🙈
Abstract ✨
Okay bestie, this doc is all about controlling two specific kinds of Ethernet switching through a GMPLS-based User Network Interface (UNI) 🔥 The switching it supports is what the Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) and the ITU's G.8011 need for their Ethernet services. It's the UNI companion to "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support for Metro Ethernet Forum and G.8011 Ethernet Service Switching." It also doesn't define or limit the underlying intra-domain or Internal NNI (I-NNI) tech used to support the UNI, so that part stays open 💖
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). More info on Internet Standards is in Section 2 of RFC 5741 📚
For the current status, any errata, and how to send feedback, check http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6005 🌸
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) in effect on the date this document was published. Please read these carefully, because they spell out your rights and restrictions for this document 🙏 Code Components pulled out of this document must include Simplified BSD License text, as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions, and they come without warranty, as described in the Simplified BSD License ⚠️
Table of Contents 🧚
1. Introduction ....................................................3
1.1. Overview ...................................................4
1.2. Conventions Used in This Document ..........................5
2. Common Signaling Support ........................................5
2.1. UNI Addressing .............................................5
2.2. Ethernet Endpoint (UNI) Identification .....................6
2.2.1. Address Resolution ..................................6
2.3. Connection Identification ..................................7
3. EPL Service .....................................................7
4. EVPL Service ....................................................7
4.1. Egress VLAN ID Control and VLAN ID Preservation ............7
5. IANA Considerations .............................................8
5.1. Error Value: Routing Problem/Unknown Endpoint ..............8
6. Security Considerations .........................................8
7. References ......................................................8
7.1. Normative References .......................................8
7.2. Informative References .....................................9
Acknowledgments ....................................................91. Introduction ✨
[MEF6] and [G.8011] are two parallel frameworks for defining 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] gives the UNI requirements and framework 💜
This document provides a way to do GMPLS-based control of Label Switched Paths (LSPs) that support the transport services defined in those documents, at the UNI network reference points 🦋 Again, it doesn't define or limit the underlying intra-domain or Internal NNI (I-NNI) technology used to support the UNI. It builds on the GMPLS extensions defined in [RFC6004] and [RFC6002] ⭐
The scope of this document covers Ethernet UNI applications. It's meant to line up with the GMPLS overlay model in [RFC4208] and with GMPLS Core Network signaling 🫶 The scope and reference model are shown in Figure 1, which is based on Figure 1 of [RFC4208].
Figure 1 shows two core networks, each with two core nodes. The core nodes are labeled 'CN'. Each CN has an edge node connected to it, and the edge nodes are labeled 'EN'. Each EN supports Ethernet Networks and uses Ethernet services provided by the core nodes through a UNI. Two services are shown: one EPL and one EVPL type service. Signaling inside the core network is out of scope for this document, and it may include any technology that supports overlay UNI services 🌸 The UNI function in the edge node can be called the UNI client, or UNI-C, and the one in the CN can be called the UNI network, or UNI-N 👑
Ethernet Ethernet
Network +----------+ +-----------+ Network
+---------+ | | | | +---------+
| +----+ | | +-----+ | | +-----+ | | +----+ |
------+ | | EPL | | | | | | | | EPL | | +------
------+ EN +-+-----+--+ CN +---------+ CN +--+-----+-+ EN +------
| | | | +--+--| +---+ | | +--+-----+-+ | |
| +----+ | | | +--+--+ | | | +--+--+ | | +----+ |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
+---------+ | | | | | | | | +---------+
| | | | | | | |
+---------+ | | | | | | | | +---------+
| | | | +--+--+ | | | +--+--+ | | |
| +----+ | | | | | | +-----+ | | | +----+ |
------+ +-+--+ | | CN +---------+ CN | | | | +------
------+ EN +-+-----+--+ | | | | +--+-----+-+ EN +------
| | | |EVPL | +-----+ | | +-----+ |EVPL | | | |
| +----+ | | | | | | +----+ |
| | +----------+ |-----------+ | |
+---------+ Core Network(s) +---------+
Ethernet UNI UNI Ethernet
Network <-----> <-----> Network
Scope of This Document
Legend: EN - Edge Node
CN - Core Node
Figure 1: Ethernet UNI Reference Model1.1. Overview
This document takes one common approach to supporting the switching implied by 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 it needs. It reuses the GMPLS mechanisms specified in [RFC6004], [RFC4208], and [RFC4974] ✨
Support for Point-to-Point (P2P) and Multipoint-to-Multipoint (MP2MP) service is required by [G.8011] and [MEF11]. P2P service delivery support is based on the GMPLS support for Ethernet services covered in [RFC6004]. As with [RFC6004], the definition of support for MP2MP service is left for future study and is not addressed in this document 🙈
[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 via a link management interface. In MEF UNI Type 3, services may be established and managed via a signaling interface. As with [RFC6004], this document is aimed at the MEF UNI Type 3 mode of operation, not MEF UNI Types 1 and 2 🎀 As mentioned above, this document is limited to UNI-specific topics.
Common procedures for signaling Ethernet connections are described in Section 2 of this document. Procedures for signaling switching in support of EPL services are described in Section 3. Procedures for signaling switching in support of EVPL services are described in Section 4 🦋
1.2. Conventions Used in This Document
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] 📖
2. Common Signaling Support 🌈
This section describes the common mechanisms for supporting a UNI reference point for LSPs that provide the Ethernet Services described in [RFC6004] 💜
Except where this document specifically modifies them, the procedures for processing Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) objects are not changed by this document. The relevant procedures in existing documents, notably [RFC6002], [RFC6004], [RFC4208], and [RFC4974], MUST be followed in all cases that this document does not explicitly describe 🔥
2.1. UNI Addressing
LSPs providing Ethernet connections controlled through the mechanisms defined in this document MUST use the addressing and other procedures defined in [RFC4208]. Of note, this includes using the egress edge node's IP address in the endpoint address field in the SESSION object 🧚
One issue with the addressing approach in [RFC4208] is that an ingress edge node may not receive the egress edge node's IP address as part of the management, or other, request that starts a new Ethernet connection. This case is covered as described in Section 7.2 of [RFC4974] and modified below in Section 2.2.1 🫶
2.2. Ethernet Endpoint (UNI) Identification
UNI identification MUST follow Ethernet endpoint (UNI) identification as defined in [RFC6004], except as noted below. This document covers one additional case where the scope of the Ethernet endpoint identifier matters beyond the usual case of just ingress and egress nodes 👑
2.2.1. Address Resolution ✨
Okay so at the UNI reference point, the ingress edge node might not have the egress edge node's IP address when it starts an LSP 🫠. That's a whole problem, bestie, because the egress IP address gets carried in the SESSION object. The fix borrows the approach from Section 7.2 of [RFC4974], which handles call ID assignment by the first core node 💅.
When an edge node (the UNI-C) starts an LSP and has the egress Ethernet endpoint identifier but not its IP address, it MUST create a Notify message as described in [RFC4974]. That Notify MUST include the CALL_ATTRIBUTES object with the Endpoint ID TLV defined [RFC6004]. The tunnel endpoint address field of the SESSION object in that Notify MUST be set to zero (0). And the message MUST be addressed and sent to an address associated with the first core node 🎀
When a core node (the UNI-N, the node providing the network side of the UNI) gets a Notify with the tunnel endpoint address field of the SESSION object set to zero, it MUST locate the Endpoint ID TLV in the CALL_ATTRIBUTES object. If the object or TLV isn't there, the node MUST discard the message. In this case, a Message ID Acknowledgment MUST NOT be sent for the Notify message 👻 (the ghost-it rule, iykyk).
Once the Endpoint ID TLV is found, the node MUST map the Endpoint ID into an IP address associated with the egress edge node. If the node can't get an egress address, it MUST issue an error response Notify messages according to Section 6.2.2. of [RFC4974]. The Error code and value SHOULD be "Routing Problem/Unknown Endpoint" (Error code 24, Error value 35) 🚫
When the node can get an egress address, the endpoint address field of the SESSION object MUST be set to the obtained address, and the Notify should be sent according to the standard processing defined in [RFC4974]. The downstream nodes then process the Notify under the standard rules 🔥
When the ingress gets the response Notify, it SHOULD identify the call based on the Endpoint ID TLV and, when they're not set to zero on the corresponding setup Notify message, the short and long Call IDs. The endpoint address field of the SESSION object in the response Notify will include the egress's IP address. This returned address MUST be used in all subsequent messages associated with the Ethernet connection 💖
Note that this procedure MAY be used when the Call IDs are generated by the initiating UNI or by the first core node 🦋
2.3. Connection Identification 🌸
With one exception, UNI signaling for Ethernet connections MUST follow the Connection Identification procedures defined in [RFC6004]. The exception is that the procedures defined in Section 7.2 of [RFC4974] MAY be used to allocate Call IDs by the first core node instead of the initiating edge node 🧚
3. EPL Service 💜
There are no extra UNI-specific requirements for signaling LSPs supporting Ethernet Private Line (EPL) services. The procedures defined in [RFC6004], as modified above, MUST be followed when signaling an LSP supporting an EPL Service ✨
4. EVPL Service 🌈
There is one additional UNI-specific requirement for signaling LSPs supporting an EVPL type service, as described in Section 4.1. Except as modified above and by this section, the procedures defined in [RFC6004] MUST be followed when signaling an EVPL Service 👑
4.1. Egress VLAN ID Control and VLAN ID Preservation 🍓
Per [MEF6], mapping the single VLAN ID used at the ingress UNI to a different VLAN ID at the egress UNI is allowed for EVPL services that don't support both bundling and VLAN ID preservation. Such a mapping MUST be requested and signaled based on the explicit label control mechanism defined in [RFC4208], and NOT the mechanisms defined in [RFC6004] 🙅♀️
As is the case in [RFC6004], when the explicit label control mechanism isn't used, VLAN IDs MUST be preserved, i.e., not modified, across the LSP 🫶
5. IANA Considerations 🧾
IANA has assigned new values for the namespaces defined in this document, summarized in this section ✨
5.1. Error Value: Routing Problem/Unknown Endpoint 📋
IANA has made the following assignment in the "Error Codes and Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes" section of the "RSVP Parameters" registry located at http://www.iana.org:
Error Code Meaning
24 Routing Problem [RFC3209]
Under "This Error Code has the following globally-defined Error
Value sub-codes:"
35 = Unknown Endpoint [RFC6005]6. Security Considerations 🔒
Bestie, this part is serious, so read it carefully 💀
This document makes use of the mechanisms defined in [RFC6004] and [RFC4974]. It does not, in itself, change the security models offered in each. (Note that the address resolution discussed in Section 2.2 above parallels the replacement of information that occurs per Section 7.2 of [RFC4974].) See [RFC6004] and [RFC4974] for the security considerations that are relevant to, and introduced by, the base mechanisms used by this document 🛡️
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.
[RFC4208] Swallow, G., Drake, J., Ishimatsu, H., and Y. Rekhter,
"Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) User-
Network Interface (UNI): Resource ReserVation Protocol-
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Support for the Overlay
Model", RFC 4208, October 2005.
[RFC4974] Papadimitriou, D. and A. Farrel, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in Support of Calls", RFC
4974, August 2007.
[RFC6002] Berger, L. and D. Fedyk, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Data
Channel Switching Capable (DCSC) and Channel Set Label
Extensions", RFC 6002, October 2010.
[RFC6004] Berger, L. and D. Fedyk, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support
for Metro Ethernet Forum and G.8011 Ethernet Service
Switching", RFC 6004, 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.Acknowledgments 🙏
Dimitri Papadimitriou provided substantial textual contributions to this document and coauthored earlier versions of it 🫶 The authors would like to thank Evelyne Roch and Stephen Shew 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: rfc6005 2010-10
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms