RE: A new ID is available on the repository draft-caviglia-ccamp- pc-and-sc-reqs-00
"Pandian, Vijay" <Vijay.Pandian@sycamorenet.com> Thu, 01 June 2006 02:45 UTC
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FldBM-0002nb-Vf for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 31 May 2006 22:45:08 -0400
Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FldBK-0001SM-J9 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 31 May 2006 22:45:08 -0400
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>) id 1Fld11-00003D-1Z for ccamp-data@psg.com; Thu, 01 Jun 2006 02:34:27 +0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on psg.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.1
Received: from [12.146.0.143] (helo=bristol.sycamorenet.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <Vijay.Pandian@sycamorenet.com>) id 1Fld0z-00002x-Qb for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 01 Jun 2006 02:34:25 +0000
Received: by bristol.sycamorenet.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2658.3) id <KZ26M113>; Wed, 31 May 2006 22:34:24 -0400
Message-ID: <0679BA70A2F59E49B186858B47F4595C0874D6@viper.sycamorenet.com>
From: "Pandian, Vijay" <Vijay.Pandian@sycamorenet.com>
To: 'Adrian Farrel' <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org, Diego Caviglia <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com>, Dino Bramanti <Dino.Bramanti@marconi.com>
Subject: RE: A new ID is available on the repository draft-caviglia-ccamp- pc-and-sc-reqs-00
Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 22:34:12 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2658.3)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 29dc808194f5fb921c09d0040806d6eb
Adrian and Dimitri, Not sure why we need extra requirements to handle this case. Also not sure why CP needs to guarantee identical states at [a] and [b]. May be I am not understanding the case that is being pictured here. The way I read the requirements, once the control is transferred to MP (i.e., CP[a] -> MP), CP should forget everything about this LSP, Isn't it? If this is true, then MP -> CP[b] should be treated as the ONLY general case of MP -> CP conversion, right? Regards, Vijay -----Original Message----- From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 7:18 PM To: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Diego Caviglia; Dino Bramanti Subject: Re: A new ID is available on the repository draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-00 Interesting question. It would certainly be the case that the picture you draw could arise. I guess we would describe this in terms of SPCs. Is it necessary that identical state is held at [a] and [b]. In particular, the question of Session ID and LSP ID spring to mind. Yes, we need clear requirements for this type of situation. Want to suggest some? Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: <Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be> To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Cc: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>; "Diego Caviglia" <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com>; "Dino Bramanti" <Dino.Bramanti@marconi.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 7:44 PM Subject: Re: A nerw ID is available on the repository draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-00 > agreed - > > question: in case of move CP->MP who guarantees that the CP at state [b] > retrieves its states it had at [a] e.g. > > MP->CP[a]->MP->CP[b]? > > do we need a specific requirement for this case ? > > > > > > > "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> > Sent by: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org > 25/05/2006 19:53 > Please respond to "Adrian Farrel" > > To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, "Diego Caviglia" > <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com> > cc: "Dan Li <danli", "Dino Bramanti" > <Dino.Bramanti@marconi.com> > Subject: Re: A nerw ID is available on the repository > draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-00 > > > Hi Diego, > > Thanks for putting this I-D together. I think it gives a much clearer > picture of what you are trying to achieve with your discussion of moving > control of an LSP between the management plane and the control plane. > > This seems like a reasonable set of requirements to me, and I would like > to > see some discussion from folk on whether they think this is valuable work, > > and whether we should start to look for protocol solutions. > > Thanks, > Adrian > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Diego Caviglia" <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com> > To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> > Cc: "Dan Li <danli" <danli@huawei.com>; "Dino Bramanti" > <Dino.Bramanti@marconi.com> > Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 8:48 AM > Subject: A nerw ID is available on the repository > draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-00 > > >>A new ID is available on the ID repository >> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-00.t xt > . >> >> The ID states some basic requrements for the possibility of turning a >> Permanent Connection (PC) into a Soft Permanent Connection (SPC) and > vice >> versa, without actually affecting Data Plane traffic, no solutions are >> proposed in the ID. >> >> Abstract >> >> From a Carrier perspective, the possibility of turning a Permanent >> Connection (PC) into a Soft Permanent Connection (SPC) and vice >> versa, without actually affecting Data Plane traffic being carried >> over it, is a valuable option. In other terms, such operation can be >> seen as a way of transferring the ownership and control of an >> existing and in-use Data Plane connection between the Management >> Plane and the Control Plane, leaving its Data Plane state untouched. >> This memo sets out the requirements for such procedures within a >> Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) network. >> >> >> Comments and suggestions are very welcome sxpecially from the carrier >> community. >> >> Regards >> >> Diego >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 31 May 2006 23:18:48 +0000 Message-ID: <0f1401c68508$8b29e8d0$08849ed9@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> To: <Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be> Cc: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, "Diego Caviglia" <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com>, "Dino Bramanti" <Dino.Bramanti@marconi.com> Subject: Re: A new ID is available on the repository draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-00 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 00:18:10 +0100 Organization: Old Dog Consulting MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Interesting question. It would certainly be the case that the picture you draw could arise. I guess we would describe this in terms of SPCs. Is it necessary that identical state is held at [a] and [b]. In particular, the question of Session ID and LSP ID spring to mind. Yes, we need clear requirements for this type of situation. Want to suggest some? Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: <Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be> To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Cc: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>; "Diego Caviglia" <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com>; "Dino Bramanti" <Dino.Bramanti@marconi.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 7:44 PM Subject: Re: A nerw ID is available on the repository draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-00 > agreed - > > question: in case of move CP->MP who guarantees that the CP at state [b] > retrieves its states it had at [a] e.g. > > MP->CP[a]->MP->CP[b]? > > do we need a specific requirement for this case ? > > > > > > > "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> > Sent by: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org > 25/05/2006 19:53 > Please respond to "Adrian Farrel" > > To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, "Diego Caviglia" > <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com> > cc: "Dan Li <danli", "Dino Bramanti" > <Dino.Bramanti@marconi.com> > Subject: Re: A nerw ID is available on the repository > draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-00 > > > Hi Diego, > > Thanks for putting this I-D together. I think it gives a much clearer > picture of what you are trying to achieve with your discussion of moving > control of an LSP between the management plane and the control plane. > > This seems like a reasonable set of requirements to me, and I would like > to > see some discussion from folk on whether they think this is valuable work, > > and whether we should start to look for protocol solutions. > > Thanks, > Adrian > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Diego Caviglia" <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com> > To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> > Cc: "Dan Li <danli" <danli@huawei.com>; "Dino Bramanti" > <Dino.Bramanti@marconi.com> > Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 8:48 AM > Subject: A nerw ID is available on the repository > draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-00 > > >>A new ID is available on the ID repository >> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-00.txt > . >> >> The ID states some basic requrements for the possibility of turning a >> Permanent Connection (PC) into a Soft Permanent Connection (SPC) and > vice >> versa, without actually affecting Data Plane traffic, no solutions are >> proposed in the ID. >> >> Abstract >> >> From a Carrier perspective, the possibility of turning a Permanent >> Connection (PC) into a Soft Permanent Connection (SPC) and vice >> versa, without actually affecting Data Plane traffic being carried >> over it, is a valuable option. In other terms, such operation can be >> seen as a way of transferring the ownership and control of an >> existing and in-use Data Plane connection between the Management >> Plane and the Control Plane, leaving its Data Plane state untouched. >> This memo sets out the requirements for such procedures within a >> Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) network. >> >> >> Comments and suggestions are very welcome sxpecially from the carrier >> community. >> >> Regards >> >> Diego >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 31 May 2006 23:16:20 +0000 Message-ID: <0f0901c68508$2a6b1050$08849ed9@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> To: <Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be> Cc: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, "WALTER ROTHKEGEL" <wrothkegel@lucent.com> Subject: Re: A nerw ID is available on the repository draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-00 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 00:15:04 +0100 Organization: Old Dog Consulting MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Dimitri, > adrian - what does the term "broadcast" connection refers to in the below > message ? Well, Walter is the best person to ask since it was his message. > afaik in the context of MPLS-TE/GMPLS: p2p, and p2mp TE LSPs are > considered isn'it ? Some parsing problems on your sentence, but I think you are saying what I thought when I read this. Effectively, I assumed that "broadcast connection" and "multicast connection" were intended to be synonyms for P2MP LSP (possibly with slight differences in usage maybe through label stacking). Adrian > "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> > Sent by: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org > 31/05/2006 19:13 > Please respond to "Adrian Farrel" > > To: "WALTER ROTHKEGEL" <wrothkegel@lucent.com> > cc: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, "Diego Caviglia" > <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com>, "Dan Li <danli", "Dino Bramanti" > <Dino.Bramanti@marconi.com> > Subject: Re: A nerw ID is available on the repository > draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-00 > > > Hi Walter, > > Thanks for your thoughts. > > May I restate them to make sure that I understand? > >> While I think these requirements are real, I can not imagine that they >> can be solved by some protocol extensions. > > If I am interpretting you correctly, you are saying that you agree with > the > requirements. This means that *if* they can be solved, you would be quite > pleased. And even if they could only be solved in certain control > situations, you would also think that a good thing. > > On the other hand, you are skeptical that a solution can be developed. > Presumably, this means that you would not want to spend your time > attempting > to develop one, or see the WG expend much bandwidth on trying to find a > way > to meet the requirements. But I don't suppose you would object if the > authors of this I-D spent their own time trying to hatch a solution and > then > brought it to the working group for discussion. > >> One reason is, as it is stated in the I_D, that "ownership by the >> Management >> and Control Planes is strictly an implementation issue", which we can > not >> solve by a protocol alone. > > Hmmm. Yeah I guess it could be a problem if a device determined that it > would not allow resources to be exchanged between the two planes. Handling > > (or, more precisely, not handling) NEs that do not support these funcitons > > certainly has to be discussed. I suppose there are two situations: > 1. As you describe, the LSP cannot be shifted. I.e. the LSR understands > the request but is unable or unwilling to comply. > 2. The LSR does not understand the request. I.e. it has not been > upgraded to handle the protocol solution. > > I think this is actually business as usual for protocol work, isn't it? > >> Secondly, the MP and CP typically store additional data associated with >> the >> connection, which is implementation specific, but needs also appropriate >> conversion, or the conversion must at least ensure data integrity. > > I'd be intrigued to know what additional informaiton a standard GMPLS > control plane is going to store over and above what is signaled by the > protocol. So the problem you describe is lopsided - if the MP and CP are > capable of storing the additional information then I think there is no > issue > (and presumably everything is the same implementation-specific stuff). But > > if there are differences in implmentations in the CP, then they must be > running some common set of protocol extensions and it is this that needs > to > be converted to/from the MP. > > Note that if the MP offers the ability to configure things on an NE that > cannot be carried in signaling then those things cannot bve carried in > signaling, period. That is, you cannot consider provisioning an LSP in the > > CP at all if you need to carry this information. Fortunately, we are not > having a discussion on the relative merits of using a control plane - the > situation we are examining is one where the operator (the customer!) has > decided to move ownership of an LSP between planes, and wants to know how > to > do it. That means that the operator has already accepted that the LSP can > be > managed by both planes and wishes to make the transfer without turning the > > service down. > >> Finally, need to look, what is convertible at all. E.g., the MP may have >> implemented certain broadcast or multicast connections, or special >> protection >> schemes, which are not (yet) supported by the CP. > > Yes, there is the possiblity that certain services in the MP cannot be > achieved in the CP (although it would be interesting to discuss which, > because if there is a need, the control plane is surely in need of > enhancement). So you are right, there may be some LSPs that cannot be > migrated in this way. But what about those that can? Do you think we > should > at least consider these requirements for those LSPs that can be migrated? > > Many thanks, > Adrian > > > > > > > > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 31 May 2006 23:05:38 +0000 Message-ID: <0edb01c68506$7bc3df10$08849ed9@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Cc: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <tnadeau@cisco.com>, <yasukawa.seisho@lab.ntt.co.jp> Subject: Fw: I-D ACTION:draft-farrel-mpls-p2mp-te-mib-00.txt Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 00:00:46 +0100 Organization: Old Dog Consulting MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, We have put together a first cut of a MIB module for P2MP MPLS-TE. This is intended to also work for P2MP GMPLS so please review it and comment. Comments would best be made on the MPLS mailing list so that all discussion of the document are kept in one place. Cheers, Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: <Internet-Drafts@ietf.org> To: <i-d-announce@ietf.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 8:50 PM Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-farrel-mpls-p2mp-te-mib-00.txt >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >directories. > > > Title : Point-to-Multipoint Multiprotocol Label > Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) > Management Information Base (MIB) module > Author(s) : A. Farrel, et al. > Filename : draft-farrel-mpls-p2mp-te-mib-00.txt > Pages : 36 > Date : 2006-5-31 > > This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base > for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. > In particular, it describes managed objects for point-to-multipoint > Multiprotocol Label Switching-based traffic engineering. > > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-farrel-mpls-p2mp-te-mib-00.txt > > To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to > i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the > message. > You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce > to change your subscription settings. > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the > username > "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, > type "cd internet-drafts" and then > "get draft-farrel-mpls-p2mp-te-mib-00.txt". > > A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in > http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > > Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > > Send a message to: > mailserv@ietf.org. > In the body type: > "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-farrel-mpls-p2mp-te-mib-00.txt". > > NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" > command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split > up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on > how to manipulate these messages. > > > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > Internet-Draft. > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > I-D-Announce mailing list > I-D-Announce@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 31 May 2006 19:49:42 +0000 Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 14:48:24 -0500 From: Young Lee <ylee@huawei.com> Subject: a new internet draft To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org, pce@ietf.org Cc: "James.Zhu" <zhujiangyun@huawei.com> Message-id: <000a01c684eb$2dba4180$f5087c0a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_ZqT/i4M9/90b0oq8d4LvsQ)" Thread-index: AcaE6y1AxIyUUwPdRviXO83vBvWlOA== This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_ZqT/i4M9/90b0oq8d4LvsQ) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Hi all, A new internet draft is available on the ID repository. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lee-ccamp-pce-policy-recovery-00.t xt Abstract: This document describes a framework for policy-based protection/ restoration mechanism in GMPLS network. This document provides the definition for recovery policy, architecture framework and the protocol requirements to be able to support policy-based recovery mechanism. Comments and suggestions will be appreciated. Best regards, Young Lee Huawei Technologies (USA) --Boundary_(ID_ZqT/i4M9/90b0oq8d4LvsQ) Content-type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT <html> <head> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered)"> <style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:宋体; panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;} @font-face {font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} @font-face {font-family:"\@宋体"; panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;} @font-face {font-family:"\@Arial Unicode MS"; panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline;} pre {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:宋体;} span.EmailStyle17 {font-family:Arial; color:windowtext;} @page Section1 {size:595.3pt 841.9pt; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style> </head> <body lang=ZH-CN link=blue vlink=purple> <div class=Section1> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face=Arial><span lang=EN-US style='font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:Arial'>Hi all,</span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face=Arial><span lang=EN-US style='font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:Arial'> </span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face=Arial><span lang=EN-US style='font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:Arial'>A new internet draft is available on the ID repository. </span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face=Arial><span lang=EN-US style='font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:Arial'> </span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face=Arial><span lang=EN-US style='font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:Arial'><a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lee-ccamp-pce-policy-recovery-00.txt">http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lee-ccamp-pce-policy-recovery-00.txt</a></span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face=Arial><span lang=EN-US style='font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:Arial'> </span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face=Arial><span lang=EN-US style='font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:Arial'>Abstract: </span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face=Arial><span lang=EN-US style='font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:Arial'> </span></font></p> <pre><font size=3 face=Arial><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt; font-family:Arial'>This document describes a framework for policy-based protection/ restoration mechanism </span></font></pre><pre><font size=3 face=Arial><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Arial'>in GMPLS network. This document provides the definition for recovery policy, architecture </span></font></pre><pre><font size=3 face=Arial><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Arial'>framework and the protocol requirements to be able to support policy-based recovery </span></font></pre><pre><font size=3 face=Arial><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Arial'>mechanism.</span></font></pre> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face=Arial><span lang=EN-US style='font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:Arial'> </span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face=Arial><span lang=EN-US style='font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:Arial'>Comments and suggestions will be appreciated. </span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face=Arial><span lang=EN-US style='font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:Arial'> </span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face=Arial><span lang=EN-US style='font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:Arial'>Best regards,</span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face=Arial><span lang=EN-US style='font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:Arial'> </span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face=Arial><span lang=DE style='font-size:12.0pt; font-family:Arial'>Young Lee</span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face=Arial><span lang=DE style='font-size:12.0pt; font-family:Arial'>Huawei Technologies (USA)</span></font></p> </div> </body> </html> --Boundary_(ID_ZqT/i4M9/90b0oq8d4LvsQ)-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 31 May 2006 18:45:12 +0000 To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org, "Diego Caviglia" <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com>, "Dino Bramanti" <Dino.Bramanti@marconi.com> Subject: Re: A nerw ID is available on the repository draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-00 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <OFCC20A3F1.962C5DE0-ONC125717F.0066E35C-C125717F.0066FD00@netfr.alcatel.fr> From: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 20:44:54 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" agreed - question: in case of move CP->MP who guarantees that the CP at state [b] retrieves its states it had at [a] e.g. MP->CP[a]->MP->CP[b]? do we need a specific requirement for this case ? "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Sent by: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org 25/05/2006 19:53 Please respond to "Adrian Farrel" To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, "Diego Caviglia" <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com> cc: "Dan Li <danli", "Dino Bramanti" <Dino.Bramanti@marconi.com> Subject: Re: A nerw ID is available on the repository draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-00 Hi Diego, Thanks for putting this I-D together. I think it gives a much clearer picture of what you are trying to achieve with your discussion of moving control of an LSP between the management plane and the control plane. This seems like a reasonable set of requirements to me, and I would like to see some discussion from folk on whether they think this is valuable work, and whether we should start to look for protocol solutions. Thanks, Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Diego Caviglia" <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com> To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Cc: "Dan Li <danli" <danli@huawei.com>; "Dino Bramanti" <Dino.Bramanti@marconi.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 8:48 AM Subject: A nerw ID is available on the repository draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-00 >A new ID is available on the ID repository > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-00.txt . > > The ID states some basic requrements for the possibility of turning a > Permanent Connection (PC) into a Soft Permanent Connection (SPC) and vice > versa, without actually affecting Data Plane traffic, no solutions are > proposed in the ID. > > Abstract > > From a Carrier perspective, the possibility of turning a Permanent > Connection (PC) into a Soft Permanent Connection (SPC) and vice > versa, without actually affecting Data Plane traffic being carried > over it, is a valuable option. In other terms, such operation can be > seen as a way of transferring the ownership and control of an > existing and in-use Data Plane connection between the Management > Plane and the Control Plane, leaving its Data Plane state untouched. > This memo sets out the requirements for such procedures within a > Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) network. > > > Comments and suggestions are very welcome sxpecially from the carrier > community. > > Regards > > Diego > > > > > > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 31 May 2006 18:38:19 +0000 To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org, "Diego Caviglia" <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com>, "Dino Bramanti" <Dino.Bramanti@marconi.com>, owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org, "WALTER ROTHKEGEL" <wrothkegel@lucent.com>, "Diego Caviglia" <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com> Subject: Re: A nerw ID is available on the repository draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-00 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <OF8E4F5860.EC8AEC15-ONC125717F.0065F44E-C125717F.00665571@netfr.alcatel.fr> From: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 20:37:45 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" adrian - what does the term "broadcast" connection refers to in the below message ? afaik in the context of MPLS-TE/GMPLS: p2p, and p2mp TE LSPs are considered isn'it ? "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Sent by: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org 31/05/2006 19:13 Please respond to "Adrian Farrel" To: "WALTER ROTHKEGEL" <wrothkegel@lucent.com> cc: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, "Diego Caviglia" <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com>, "Dan Li <danli", "Dino Bramanti" <Dino.Bramanti@marconi.com> Subject: Re: A nerw ID is available on the repository draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-00 Hi Walter, Thanks for your thoughts. May I restate them to make sure that I understand? > While I think these requirements are real, I can not imagine that they > can be solved by some protocol extensions. If I am interpretting you correctly, you are saying that you agree with the requirements. This means that *if* they can be solved, you would be quite pleased. And even if they could only be solved in certain control situations, you would also think that a good thing. On the other hand, you are skeptical that a solution can be developed. Presumably, this means that you would not want to spend your time attempting to develop one, or see the WG expend much bandwidth on trying to find a way to meet the requirements. But I don't suppose you would object if the authors of this I-D spent their own time trying to hatch a solution and then brought it to the working group for discussion. > One reason is, as it is stated in the I_D, that "ownership by the > Management > and Control Planes is strictly an implementation issue", which we can not > solve by a protocol alone. Hmmm. Yeah I guess it could be a problem if a device determined that it would not allow resources to be exchanged between the two planes. Handling (or, more precisely, not handling) NEs that do not support these funcitons certainly has to be discussed. I suppose there are two situations: 1. As you describe, the LSP cannot be shifted. I.e. the LSR understands the request but is unable or unwilling to comply. 2. The LSR does not understand the request. I.e. it has not been upgraded to handle the protocol solution. I think this is actually business as usual for protocol work, isn't it? > Secondly, the MP and CP typically store additional data associated with > the > connection, which is implementation specific, but needs also appropriate > conversion, or the conversion must at least ensure data integrity. I'd be intrigued to know what additional informaiton a standard GMPLS control plane is going to store over and above what is signaled by the protocol. So the problem you describe is lopsided - if the MP and CP are capable of storing the additional information then I think there is no issue (and presumably everything is the same implementation-specific stuff). But if there are differences in implmentations in the CP, then they must be running some common set of protocol extensions and it is this that needs to be converted to/from the MP. Note that if the MP offers the ability to configure things on an NE that cannot be carried in signaling then those things cannot bve carried in signaling, period. That is, you cannot consider provisioning an LSP in the CP at all if you need to carry this information. Fortunately, we are not having a discussion on the relative merits of using a control plane - the situation we are examining is one where the operator (the customer!) has decided to move ownership of an LSP between planes, and wants to know how to do it. That means that the operator has already accepted that the LSP can be managed by both planes and wishes to make the transfer without turning the service down. > Finally, need to look, what is convertible at all. E.g., the MP may have > implemented certain broadcast or multicast connections, or special > protection > schemes, which are not (yet) supported by the CP. Yes, there is the possiblity that certain services in the MP cannot be achieved in the CP (although it would be interesting to discuss which, because if there is a need, the control plane is surely in need of enhancement). So you are right, there may be some LSPs that cannot be migrated in this way. But what about those that can? Do you think we should at least consider these requirements for those LSPs that can be migrated? Many thanks, Adrian Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 31 May 2006 17:44:54 +0000 Message-ID: <447DBD8D.9020804@lucent.com> Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 18:00:13 +0200 From: WALTER ROTHKEGEL <wrothkegel@lucent.com> Organization: Lucent Technologies User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 (CK-LucentTPES) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> CC: ccamp@ops.ietf.org, Diego Caviglia <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com>, "Dan Li <danli" <danli@huawei.com>, Dino Bramanti <Dino.Bramanti@marconi.com> Subject: Re: A nerw ID is available on the repository draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Adrian, some thoughts: While I think these requirements are real, I can not imagine that they can be solved by some protocol extensions. One reason is, as it is stated in the I_D, that "ownership by the Management and Control Planes is strictly an implementation issue", which we can not solve by a protocol alone. Secondly, the MP and CP typically store additional data associated with the connection, which is implementation specific, but needs also appropriate conversion, or the conversion must at least ensure data integrity. Finally, need to look, what is convertible at all. E.g., the MP may have implemented certain broadcast or multicast connections, or special protection schemes, which are not (yet) supported by the CP. Regards Walter On 25.05.2006 19:53, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi Diego, > > Thanks for putting this I-D together. I think it gives a much clearer > picture of what you are trying to achieve with your discussion of moving > control of an LSP between the management plane and the control plane. > > This seems like a reasonable set of requirements to me, and I would like to > see some discussion from folk on whether they think this is valuable work, > and whether we should start to look for protocol solutions. > > Thanks, > Adrian > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Diego Caviglia" <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com> > To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> > Cc: "Dan Li <danli" <danli@huawei.com>; "Dino Bramanti" > <Dino.Bramanti@marconi.com> > Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 8:48 AM > Subject: A nerw ID is available on the repository > draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-00 > > > >>A new ID is available on the ID repository >>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-00.txt. >> >>The ID states some basic requrements for the possibility of turning a >>Permanent Connection (PC) into a Soft Permanent Connection (SPC) and vice >>versa, without actually affecting Data Plane traffic, no solutions are >>proposed in the ID. >> >>Abstract >> >> From a Carrier perspective, the possibility of turning a Permanent >> Connection (PC) into a Soft Permanent Connection (SPC) and vice >> versa, without actually affecting Data Plane traffic being carried >> over it, is a valuable option. In other terms, such operation can be >> seen as a way of transferring the ownership and control of an >> existing and in-use Data Plane connection between the Management >> Plane and the Control Plane, leaving its Data Plane state untouched. >> This memo sets out the requirements for such procedures within a >> Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) network. >> >> >>Comments and suggestions are very welcome sxpecially from the carrier >>community. >> >>Regards >> >>Diego >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > -- ________________________________________________________________________ Walter Rothkegel, Lucent Technologies Network Systems GmbH, Dept. O-SE Thurn-und-Taxis-Str. 10-14, 90411 Nuernberg, Germany Phone: +49 911 526-4084 Fax: +49 911 526-6299 mailto:wrothkegel@lucent.com Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 31 May 2006 17:15:50 +0000 Message-ID: <0e4101c684d5$9ea67f50$08849ed9@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> To: "WALTER ROTHKEGEL" <wrothkegel@lucent.com> Cc: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, "Diego Caviglia" <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com>, "Dan Li <danli" <danli@huawei.com>, "Dino Bramanti" <Dino.Bramanti@marconi.com> Subject: Re: A nerw ID is available on the repository draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-00 Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 18:13:53 +0100 Organization: Old Dog Consulting MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Walter, Thanks for your thoughts. May I restate them to make sure that I understand? > While I think these requirements are real, I can not imagine that they > can be solved by some protocol extensions. If I am interpretting you correctly, you are saying that you agree with the requirements. This means that *if* they can be solved, you would be quite pleased. And even if they could only be solved in certain control situations, you would also think that a good thing. On the other hand, you are skeptical that a solution can be developed. Presumably, this means that you would not want to spend your time attempting to develop one, or see the WG expend much bandwidth on trying to find a way to meet the requirements. But I don't suppose you would object if the authors of this I-D spent their own time trying to hatch a solution and then brought it to the working group for discussion. > One reason is, as it is stated in the I_D, that "ownership by the > Management > and Control Planes is strictly an implementation issue", which we can not > solve by a protocol alone. Hmmm. Yeah I guess it could be a problem if a device determined that it would not allow resources to be exchanged between the two planes. Handling (or, more precisely, not handling) NEs that do not support these funcitons certainly has to be discussed. I suppose there are two situations: 1. As you describe, the LSP cannot be shifted. I.e. the LSR understands the request but is unable or unwilling to comply. 2. The LSR does not understand the request. I.e. it has not been upgraded to handle the protocol solution. I think this is actually business as usual for protocol work, isn't it? > Secondly, the MP and CP typically store additional data associated with > the > connection, which is implementation specific, but needs also appropriate > conversion, or the conversion must at least ensure data integrity. I'd be intrigued to know what additional informaiton a standard GMPLS control plane is going to store over and above what is signaled by the protocol. So the problem you describe is lopsided - if the MP and CP are capable of storing the additional information then I think there is no issue (and presumably everything is the same implementation-specific stuff). But if there are differences in implmentations in the CP, then they must be running some common set of protocol extensions and it is this that needs to be converted to/from the MP. Note that if the MP offers the ability to configure things on an NE that cannot be carried in signaling then those things cannot bve carried in signaling, period. That is, you cannot consider provisioning an LSP in the CP at all if you need to carry this information. Fortunately, we are not having a discussion on the relative merits of using a control plane - the situation we are examining is one where the operator (the customer!) has decided to move ownership of an LSP between planes, and wants to know how to do it. That means that the operator has already accepted that the LSP can be managed by both planes and wishes to make the transfer without turning the service down. > Finally, need to look, what is convertible at all. E.g., the MP may have > implemented certain broadcast or multicast connections, or special > protection > schemes, which are not (yet) supported by the CP. Yes, there is the possiblity that certain services in the MP cannot be achieved in the CP (although it would be interesting to discuss which, because if there is a need, the control plane is surely in need of enhancement). So you are right, there may be some LSPs that cannot be migrated in this way. But what about those that can? Do you think we should at least consider these requirements for those LSPs that can be migrated? Many thanks, Adrian Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 31 May 2006 14:45:57 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-05.txt Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 10:44:38 -0400 Message-ID: <BABC859E6D0B9A4D8448CC7F41CD2B0701D05C8F@xmb-rtp-203.amer.cisco.com> Thread-Topic: working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-05.txt Thread-Index: AcZ/R9v0YpaSjq2CSj6YNicpNTtUbwFb2knA From: "Zafar Ali \(zali\)" <zali@cisco.com> To: "Yakov Rekhter" <yakov@juniper.net>, "Loa Andersson" <loa@pi.se> Cc: <mpls@ietf.org>, "ccamp" <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, "George Swallow \(swallow\)" <swallow@cisco.com>, "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "Deborah Brungard" <dbrungard@att.com>, "Ross Callon" <rcallon@juniper.net>, "Bill Fenner" <fenner@research.att.com> DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=2644; t=1149086679; x=1149950679; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1001; h=From:Subject; d=cisco.com; i=zali@cisco.com; z=From:=22Zafar=20Ali=20\(zali\)=22=20<zali@cisco.com> |Subject:RE=3A=20working=20group=20last=20call=20on=20draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2m p-05.txt=20; X=v=3Dcisco.com=3B=20h=3Ds2QdIjLYxjuMwjYE13iS3QN8AeY=3D; b=OvWUVFPHo4d3vBy7Ihd/pYGvkC5+0fcO8DMzhf7ZgtAXWFtc2d0O939jk324kN61S79ZDKtz NxjpWCkNj7dwt7TP1EkQ2hEwLvxGoO1ZpHaUGzBUIaYyIwYTxa9jw2WF; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1.cisco.com; header.From=zali@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com verified; ); > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org=20 > [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Yakov Rekhter > Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 11:35 AM > To: Loa Andersson > Cc: mpls@ietf.org; ccamp; George Swallow (swallow); Adrian=20 > Farrel; Deborah Brungard; Ross Callon; Bill Fenner > Subject: Re: working group last call on=20 > draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-05.txt=20 >=20 > Loa and George, >=20 > > Working Group, > >=20 > > this initiates a two week working group last call on=20 > > draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-05.txt > >=20 > > please send comments to the MPLS working group mailling list and/or=20 > > working co-chairs. > >=20 > > The last call ends eob May 28th. > >=20 > > The ccamp mailing list copied as this is a work that has an overlap=20 > > between the working groups. > >=20 > > Loa and George >=20 > Few observations and suggestions... >=20 > (a) <Ingress LSR IP address, P2MP ID> tuple is both necessary=20 > and sufficient to unambiguously identify a P2MP Tunnel. >=20 Yakov, et al I would ask to add extended tunnel ID as part of this, unless we force is to be equal to the Ingress LSR IP address (at least in P2MP draft), as suggested by George.=20 > (b) Further <Ingress LSR IP address, P2MP ID, LSP ID> is both=20 > necessary and sufficient to identify a P2MP LSP. Following the above comment, a FEC for P2MP is identified by <Ingress LSR IP address, P2MP ID, LSP ID, extended tunnel ID>.=20 Thanks Regards... Zafar=20 >=20 > Therefore I would suggest that draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-05.txt > should say the following: >=20 > 1. A P2MP tunnel is identified by a tuple <root node IP address, > index>, where the index value is unique within the scope of the IP > address of the root node. The P2MP tunnel identifier <root=20 > node IP address, index> is unique within the same scope as=20 > the root node IP address. >=20 > 2. Both the Extended Tunnel ID and the Tunnel Sender Address=20 > fields carry the root node IP address (both fields carry the=20 > same value). > The index is carried in the P2MP ID. >=20 > 3. Tunnel ID field should be set to all zeros, and be ignored=20 > on receipt. >=20 > 4. A P2MP LSP is identified by a combination of tunnel=20 > identifier (<root node IP address, index>), and LSP ID. >=20 > With this in mind sections 4.1, 4.2, 19.1 and 19.2 should be=20 > modified to clarify the following: >=20 > (a) SESSION identifier; > (b) semantics of Extended Tunnel ID; semantics of the P2MP ID; > (c) semantics of the Tunnel ID IP address in the SENDER_TEMPLATE. >=20 > Yakov. >=20 Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 31 May 2006 14:45:49 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-05.txt Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 10:44:33 -0400 Message-ID: <BABC859E6D0B9A4D8448CC7F41CD2B0701D05C8C@xmb-rtp-203.amer.cisco.com> Thread-Topic: working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-05.txt Thread-Index: AcaCdrAJDW5rhHgmRqe9wJN4uwqxQgCPwGEg From: "Zafar Ali \(zali\)" <zali@cisco.com> To: "Yakov Rekhter" <yakov@juniper.net>, "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Cc: "Loa Andersson" <loa@pi.se>, <mpls@ietf.org>, "ccamp" <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, "George Swallow \(swallow\)" <swallow@cisco.com>, "Deborah Brungard" <dbrungard@att.com>, "Ross Callon" <rcallon@juniper.net>, "Bill Fenner" <fenner@research.att.com> DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=3534; t=1149086674; x=1149950674; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=zali@cisco.com; z=From:=22Zafar=20Ali=20\(zali\)=22=20<zali@cisco.com> |Subject:RE=3A=20working=20group=20last=20call=20on=20draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2m p-05.txt=20; X=v=3Dcisco.com=3B=20h=3Dz4HV9KCTBmcbjG78hTn1772rpGI=3D; b=lv9/7NPEJ8zlf8JfH4i5L9n5v4je6xklQqf3ebhH+UhL/RKLs3WGpdZGkLTEnrT1rtqvsjim ck61ChFC4FScbqJECpkHNX4rT/aLGb9ChbhFqoo43OD0MbbBNycfeIhS; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2.cisco.com; header.From=zali@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com verified; ); > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org=20 > [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Yakov Rekhter > Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2006 12:47 PM > To: Adrian Farrel > Cc: Loa Andersson; mpls@ietf.org; ccamp; George Swallow=20 > (swallow); Deborah Brungard; Ross Callon; Bill Fenner > Subject: Re: working group last call on=20 > draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-05.txt=20 >=20 > Adrian, >=20 > > >> > Few observations and suggestions... > > >> > > > >> > (a) <Ingress LSR IP address, P2MP ID> tuple is both=20 > necessary and=20 > > >> > sufficient to unambiguously identify a P2MP Tunnel. > > >> > > > >> > (b) Further <Ingress LSR IP address, P2MP ID, LSP ID> is both=20 > > >> > necessary and sufficient to identify a P2MP LSP. > > >> > > >> Clearly these two statements depend on the definition of=20 > "P2MP ID"=20 > > >> as you pointed out below. > > >> > > >> As the I-D says... > > >> The P2MP ID provides an identifier for the set of=20 > destinations of the > > >> P2MP TE Tunnel. > > > > > > Does this identifier have a globally unique scope, or=20 > only the scope=20 > > > of the root ? If the former, then what are the procedures for=20 > > > assigning such identifiers ? > >=20 > > Good questions. > >=20 > > Presumably, if we want to retain the concept of Session (which=20 > > appeared to be the case in discussion amongst the authors) then the=20 > > P2MP ID has to have global scope. > >=20 > > Not sure whether the procedures for assigning the=20 > identifiers has to=20 > > be in scope of this document. The procedure for assigning=20 > IP addresses=20 > > to P2P tunnel destinations does not appear to be in scope=20 > for RFC3209. > >=20 > > It is worth looking at RFC4461 for more information on the P2MP ID.=20 > > This gives us: > > A unique identifier of a P2MP TE LSP, which is=20 > constant for the > > whole LSP regardless of the number of branches and/or leaves. > > which is not as hepful as it could have been :-( > >=20 > > I think you are right to try to flush this sort of thing out now=20 > > rather than let us get into the ambiguity mess that we got=20 > to with RFC3209. >=20 > There is a difference between IP addresses used for P2P=20 > tunnel destinations, and identifiers used for P2MP ID. The=20 > former are unicast addresses (each address identifies a=20 > *single* node/interface). > The latter are *group* addresses (each address identifies a=20 > *group* of nodes). There are well-established procedures for=20 > assigining unicast IP addresses, but not for group addresses. >=20 > If some folks would like to retain the ability of the P2MP ID=20 > to have global scope, then at the minimum the spec (a) should=20 > have this as *an option*, with P2MP ID having the scope of=20 > the root node being another option documented in the spec,=20 > and (b) spell out the procedures for assigining such globally=20 > unique P2MP IDs. Yakov, Adrian, et al I think global scoping will be a bad idea. Furthermore, we cannot force it to come from multicast IP address space. So Ingress node scoping is quite obvious and IMHO suffices.=20 I also don't see an issue in sharing 2^16 space for both P2MP and P2P tunnels. Does anyone see an issue here? I think having said that P2MP ID has Ingress node scope, an implementation MAY choose to make P2MP ID =3D tunnel ID, or has flexibility otherwise.=20 My $0.02.=20 Thanks Regards... Zafar =20 >=20 > Yakov. >=20 Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 31 May 2006 07:24:21 +0000 Message-ID: <00ae01c68483$01801030$3d1fc00a@Unicom.Local> From: "wjq" <wangjq@chinaunicom.com.cn> To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, "\"Adrian Farrel\"" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Cc: "\"Diego Caviglia\"" <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com>, "\"Dino Bramanti\"" <Dino.Bramanti@marconi.com> Subject: reply Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 15:22:42 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00AB_01C684C6.0F98A1D0" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00AB_01C684C6.0F98A1D0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SGkgQWxsLA0KDQpXZSBoYXZlIGNhcmVmdWxseSBjb25zaWRlcmVkIHRoZSByZXF1aXJtZW50cyB3 aGljaCBoYXZlIGJlZW4gbmljZWx5IGRlc2NyaWJlZCBpbiB0aGlzIGRyYWZ0LCBhbmQgdGhpbmsg dGhlIHJlcXVpcmVtZW50cyBhcmUgdXNlZnVsIGFuZCBuZWNlc3NhcnkuIFRoZSBQQy9TQ1NQQyBt aWdyYXRpb24gZnVuY3Rpb24gaXMgbmVjZXNzYXJ5IGFmdGVyIHRoZSBjb250cm9sIHBsYW5lIGhh cyBiZWVuIGRlcGxveWVkLCBpdCBnaXZlcyB0aGUgb3BlcmF0b3JzIGEgdXNlZnVsIHRvb2wgdG8g bWFpbnRhaW4gdGhlIFBDL1NDL1NQQyBjb25uZWN0aW9ucywgYW5kIGl0IGFjY2VsZXJhdGVzIHRo ZSBjb252ZW5nZW5jZSBiZXR3ZWVuIHRyYW5zcG9ydCBsYXllciBhbmQgY2FycnlpbmcgbGF5ZXIg d2hpY2ggaXMgdGhlIHRyZW5kIG9mIG5leHQgZ2VuZXJhdGlvbiBuZXR3b3Jrcy4NCg0KV2Ugc3Vw cG9ydCB0aGlzIHdvcmsgaW4gSUVURiBDQ0FNUCBXRy4NCg0KVGhhbmtzLA0KDQoNClNpbmNlcmVs eSBZb3Vycw0KV2FuZyBKaWFucXVhbg0KQXNzb2NpYXRlIFByb2Zlc3Nvcg0KRW5naW5lZXJpbmcg VGVjaG5vbG9neSBEaXZpc2lvbg0KTmV0d29ya3MgQ29uc3RydWN0aW9uIERlcGFydG1lbnQsDQpD aGluYSBVbmljb20sDQpOby4xMzNBLFhpZGFuIE5vcnRoIFN0cmVldCxYaWNoZW5nIERpc3RyaWN0 LEJlaWppbmcsIDEwMDAzMixDaGluYQ0KVGVsOiAgKzg2IDEwIDY2NTA1NzM5DQpNb2JpbGWjuis4 NiAxMzMzMTAxNjYwNg0KRmF4OiAgICArODYgMTAgNjY1MDU4NDQNCkVtYWlsOiAgd2FuZ2pxQGNo aW5hdW5pY29tLmNvbS5jbg0K ------=_NextPart_000_00AB_01C684C6.0F98A1D0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PCFET0NUWVBFIEhUTUwgUFVCTElDICItLy9XM0MvL0RURCBIVE1MIDQuMCBUcmFuc2l0aW9uYWwv L0VOIj4NCjxIVE1MPjxIRUFEPg0KPE1FVEEgaHR0cC1lcXVpdj1Db250ZW50LVR5cGUgY29udGVu dD0idGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PWdiMjMxMiI+DQo8TUVUQSBjb250ZW50PSJNU0hUTUwgNi4w MC4yOTAwLjI4NzMiIG5hbWU9R0VORVJBVE9SPg0KPFNUWUxFPjwvU1RZTEU+DQo8L0hFQUQ+DQo8 Qk9EWSBiZ0NvbG9yPSNmZmZmZmY+DQo8RElWPjxGT05UIHNpemU9Mj48Rk9OVCBzaXplPTM+SGkg QWxsLDxCUj48QlI+V2UgaGF2ZSBjYXJlZnVsbHkgY29uc2lkZXJlZCB0aGUgDQpyZXF1aXJtZW50 cyB3aGljaCBoYXZlIGJlZW4gbmljZWx5IGRlc2NyaWJlZCBpbiB0aGlzIGRyYWZ0LCBhbmQgdGhp bmsgdGhlIA0KcmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzIGFyZSB1c2VmdWwgYW5kIG5lY2Vzc2FyeS4gVGhlIFBDL1ND U1BDIG1pZ3JhdGlvbiBmdW5jdGlvbiBpcyANCm5lY2Vzc2FyeSBhZnRlciB0aGUgY29udHJvbCBw bGFuZSBoYXMgYmVlbiBkZXBsb3llZCwgaXQgZ2l2ZXMgdGhlIG9wZXJhdG9ycyBhIA0KdXNlZnVs IHRvb2wgdG8gbWFpbnRhaW4gdGhlIFBDL1NDL1NQQyBjb25uZWN0aW9ucywgYW5kIGl0IGFjY2Vs ZXJhdGVzIHRoZSANCmNvbnZlbmdlbmNlIGJldHdlZW4gdHJhbnNwb3J0IGxheWVyIGFuZCBjYXJy eWluZyBsYXllciB3aGljaCBpcyB0aGUgdHJlbmQgb2YgDQpuZXh0IGdlbmVyYXRpb24gbmV0d29y a3MuPEJSPjxCUj5XZSBzdXBwb3J0IHRoaXMgd29yayBpbiBJRVRGIENDQU1QIA0KV0cuPEJSPjxC Uj5UaGFua3MsPC9GT05UPjxCUj48L0ZPTlQ+PC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPjxGT05UIHNpemU9Mj48L0ZP TlQ+Jm5ic3A7PC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPjxGT05UIHNpemU9Mj5TaW5jZXJlbHkgWW91cnM8QlI+V2Fu ZyBKaWFucXVhbjxCUj5Bc3NvY2lhdGUgDQpQcm9mZXNzb3I8QlI+RW5naW5lZXJpbmcgVGVjaG5v bG9neSBEaXZpc2lvbjxCUj5OZXR3b3JrcyBDb25zdHJ1Y3Rpb24gDQpEZXBhcnRtZW50LDxCUj5D aGluYSBVbmljb20sPEJSPk5vLjEzM0EsWGlkYW4gTm9ydGggU3RyZWV0LFhpY2hlbmcgDQpEaXN0 cmljdCxCZWlqaW5nLCAxMDAwMzIsQ2hpbmE8QlI+VGVsOiZuYnNwOyArODYgMTAgNjY1MDU3Mzk8 QlI+TW9iaWxlo7orODYgDQoxMzMzMTAxNjYwNjxCUj5GYXg6Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7ICs4 NiAxMCA2NjUwNTg0NDxCUj5FbWFpbDombmJzcDsgPEEgDQpocmVmPSJtYWlsdG86d2FuZ2pxQGNo aW5hdW5pY29tLmNvbS5jbiI+d2FuZ2pxQGNoaW5hdW5pY29tLmNvbS5jbjwvQT48QlI+PC9GT05U PjwvRElWPjwvQk9EWT48L0hUTUw+DQo= ------=_NextPart_000_00AB_01C684C6.0F98A1D0-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 31 May 2006 06:47:26 +0000 Message-ID: <1149057896.447d3b68bea03@gold.itu.ch> Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 08:44:56 +0200 From: ruiquan.jing@ties.itu.int To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: RE: A nerw ID is available on the repository draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-00 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.0 Hi All, >From my point of view as a carrier, this draft clearly describes the carrier's requirements for deploying GMPLS/ASON based transport. This is a useful feature, and I would like to support this work. Best regards, Ruiquan Jing China Telecom Beijing Research Institute Beijing, China -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 1:53 AM To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Diego Caviglia Cc: Dan Li <danli; Dino Bramanti Subject: Re: A nerw ID is available on the repository draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc- and-sc-reqs-00 Hi Diego, Thanks for putting this I-D together. I think it gives a much clearer picture of what you are trying to achieve with your discussion of moving control of an LSP between the management plane and the control plane. This seems like a reasonable set of requirements to me, and I would like to see some discussion from folk on whether they think this is valuable work, and whether we should start to look for protocol solutions. Thanks, Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Diego Caviglia" <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com> To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Cc: "Dan Li <danli" <danli@huawei.com>; "Dino Bramanti" <Dino.Bramanti@marconi.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 8:48 AM Subject: A nerw ID is available on the repository draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and- sc-reqs-00 >A new ID is available on the ID repository >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-00. txt. > > The ID states some basic requrements for the possibility of turning a > Permanent Connection (PC) into a Soft Permanent Connection (SPC) and > vice versa, without actually affecting Data Plane traffic, no > solutions are proposed in the ID. > > Abstract > > From a Carrier perspective, the possibility of turning a Permanent > Connection (PC) into a Soft Permanent Connection (SPC) and vice > versa, without actually affecting Data Plane traffic being carried > over it, is a valuable option. In other terms, such operation can be > seen as a way of transferring the ownership and control of an > existing and in-use Data Plane connection between the Management > Plane and the Control Plane, leaving its Data Plane state untouched. > This memo sets out the requirements for such procedures within a > Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) network. > > > Comments and suggestions are very welcome sxpecially from the carrier > community. > > Regards > > Diego > > > > > > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 30 May 2006 19:41:11 +0000 To: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Cc: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "Loa Andersson" <loa@pi.se>, mpls@ietf.org, "ccamp" <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, "Deborah Brungard" <dbrungard@att.com>, "Ross Callon" <rcallon@juniper.net>, "Bill Fenner" <fenner@research.att.com> Cc: swallow@cisco.com Subject: Re: working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-05.txt From: George Swallow <swallow@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 15:40:49 -0400 Message-Id: <20060530194049.8C2331FAB15@SwallowPB.local> DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=1292; t=1149017995; x=1149881995; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim7001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=swallow@cisco.com; z=From:George=20Swallow=20<swallow@cisco.com> |Subject:Re=3A=20working=20group=20last=20call=20on=20draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2m p-05.txt=20; X=v=3Dcisco.com=3B=20h=3DwFMJg3I82ycME///RDDbDBO07Mc=3D; b=awGqbJ0mEWD20IRdiItzOpbP9l3g5COBKIP8VmmR5V+gZncbEhkw3JVCBpn8vokRV8D/TCrL A7vHg9SNbousbSh/eEvDw5UajHiyA62N3+u0Ap+7LMYsAmDb/IfFiRAh; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-7.cisco.com; header.From=swallow@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com verified; ); > What are exactly the (practical) problems with carrying the root > node IP address both in the Extended Tunnel ID and in the Tunnel > Sender Address fields ? If you wish to use bypass FRR, you will do exactly this. The Extended Tunnel ID is meant to provide a means of making the Session globally unique. An intermediate node that wishes to merge back into an existing tunnel over a bypass tunnel uses it's own IP address in the sender field and the existant Session Object. If the session object were not unique then this would be very hit or miss! Personally I would like to see the text with ^^^^ removed from the draft. It was carried over from 3209 which was written prior to the FRR draft. > A 32-bit identifier used in the SESSION that remains constant > over the life of the tunnel. Normally set to all zeros. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ If we ever get around to pushing 3209 to Draft Standard I'll take it out of there as well. ...George ======================================================================== George Swallow Cisco Systems (978) 936-1398 1414 Massachusetts Avenue Boxborough, MA 01719 Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 30 May 2006 15:49:12 +0000 Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 08:47:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Rahul Aggarwal <rahul@juniper.net> To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.se> cc: mpls@ietf.org, Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com>, ccamp <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net> Subject: Re: [mpls] Closed: working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-05.txt Message-ID: <20060530084714.G76632@sapphire.juniper.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hi Loa, On Mon, 29 May 2006, Loa Andersson wrote: > All, > > this closes the working group Last Call on > draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-05.txt > > Could the authors/editors please summarize the comments and > document how they will be addressed. > We will plan to do this by end of the week. Thanks, Editors > Loa and George > > > > Loa Andersson wrote: > > Working Group, > > > > this initiates a two week working group last call on > > draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-05.txt > > > > please send comments to the MPLS working group mailling > > list and/or working co-chairs. > > > > The last call ends eob May 28th. > > > > The ccamp mailing list copied as this is a work that has > > an overlap between the working groups. > > > > Loa and George > > > > > > > > > -- > Loa Andersson > > Principal Networking Architect > Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14 > Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64 > Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson@acreo.se > loa@pi.se > > _______________________________________________ > mpls mailing list > mpls@lists.ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 29 May 2006 21:24:49 +0000 Message-ID: <447B6624.9010307@pi.se> Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 23:22:44 +0200 From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.se> Organization: Acreo AB User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (Windows/20060308) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.se> CC: mpls@ietf.org, ccamp <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, George Swallow <swallow@cisco.com>, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, Deborah Brungard <dbrungard@att.com>, Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net>, Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com> Subject: Closed: working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-05.txt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit All, this closes the working group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-05.txt Could the authors/editors please summarize the comments and document how they will be addressed. Loa and George Loa Andersson wrote: > Working Group, > > this initiates a two week working group last call on > draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-05.txt > > please send comments to the MPLS working group mailling > list and/or working co-chairs. > > The last call ends eob May 28th. > > The ccamp mailing list copied as this is a work that has > an overlap between the working groups. > > Loa and George > > > -- Loa Andersson Principal Networking Architect Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14 Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64 Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson@acreo.se loa@pi.se Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Sun, 28 May 2006 16:49:18 +0000 Message-Id: <200605281646.k4SGkn536645@merlot.juniper.net> To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> cc: "Loa Andersson" <loa@pi.se>, mpls@ietf.org, "ccamp" <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, "George Swallow" <swallow@cisco.com>, "Deborah Brungard" <dbrungard@att.com>, "Ross Callon" <rcallon@juniper.net>, "Bill Fenner" <fenner@research.att.com> Subject: Re: working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-05.txt MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <12977.1148834809.1@juniper.net> Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 09:46:49 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Adrian, > >> > Few observations and suggestions... > >> > > >> > (a) <Ingress LSR IP address, P2MP ID> tuple is both necessary and > >> > sufficient to unambiguously identify a P2MP Tunnel. > >> > > >> > (b) Further <Ingress LSR IP address, P2MP ID, LSP ID> is both > >> > necessary and sufficient to identify a P2MP LSP. > >> > >> Clearly these two statements depend on the definition of "P2MP ID" as you > >> pointed out below. > >> > >> As the I-D says... > >> The P2MP ID provides an identifier for the set of destinations of the > >> P2MP TE Tunnel. > > > > Does this identifier have a globally unique scope, or only the scope > > of the root ? If the former, then what are the procedures for > > assigning such identifiers ? > > Good questions. > > Presumably, if we want to retain the concept of Session (which appeared to > be the case in discussion amongst the authors) then the P2MP ID has to have > global scope. > > Not sure whether the procedures for assigning the identifiers has to be in > scope of this document. The procedure for assigning IP addresses to P2P > tunnel destinations does not appear to be in scope for RFC3209. > > It is worth looking at RFC4461 for more information on the P2MP ID. This > gives us: > A unique identifier of a P2MP TE LSP, which is constant for the > whole LSP regardless of the number of branches and/or leaves. > which is not as hepful as it could have been :-( > > I think you are right to try to flush this sort of thing out now rather than > let us get into the ambiguity mess that we got to with RFC3209. There is a difference between IP addresses used for P2P tunnel destinations, and identifiers used for P2MP ID. The former are unicast addresses (each address identifies a *single* node/interface). The latter are *group* addresses (each address identifies a *group* of nodes). There are well-established procedures for assigining unicast IP addresses, but not for group addresses. If some folks would like to retain the ability of the P2MP ID to have global scope, then at the minimum the spec (a) should have this as *an option*, with P2MP ID having the scope of the root node being another option documented in the spec, and (b) spell out the procedures for assigining such globally unique P2MP IDs. Yakov. Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 25 May 2006 17:59:37 +0000 Message-ID: <005b01c68024$d56630e0$08849ed9@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, "Diego Caviglia" <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com> Cc: "Dan Li <danli" <danli@huawei.com>, "Dino Bramanti" <Dino.Bramanti@marconi.com> Subject: Re: A nerw ID is available on the repository draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-00 Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 18:53:12 +0100 Organization: Old Dog Consulting MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Diego, Thanks for putting this I-D together. I think it gives a much clearer picture of what you are trying to achieve with your discussion of moving control of an LSP between the management plane and the control plane. This seems like a reasonable set of requirements to me, and I would like to see some discussion from folk on whether they think this is valuable work, and whether we should start to look for protocol solutions. Thanks, Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Diego Caviglia" <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com> To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Cc: "Dan Li <danli" <danli@huawei.com>; "Dino Bramanti" <Dino.Bramanti@marconi.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 8:48 AM Subject: A nerw ID is available on the repository draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-00 >A new ID is available on the ID repository > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-00.txt. > > The ID states some basic requrements for the possibility of turning a > Permanent Connection (PC) into a Soft Permanent Connection (SPC) and vice > versa, without actually affecting Data Plane traffic, no solutions are > proposed in the ID. > > Abstract > > From a Carrier perspective, the possibility of turning a Permanent > Connection (PC) into a Soft Permanent Connection (SPC) and vice > versa, without actually affecting Data Plane traffic being carried > over it, is a valuable option. In other terms, such operation can be > seen as a way of transferring the ownership and control of an > existing and in-use Data Plane connection between the Management > Plane and the Control Plane, leaving its Data Plane state untouched. > This memo sets out the requirements for such procedures within a > Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) network. > > > Comments and suggestions are very welcome sxpecially from the carrier > community. > > Regards > > Diego > > > > > > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 25 May 2006 16:43:08 +0000 Message-ID: <052c01c68019$fdd7e4c0$0a23fea9@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Subject: Update: Draft response to OIF on 1:n protection Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 17:35:32 +0100 Organization: Old Dog Consulting MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Jim Jones has been in touch to ask that we hold off responding for a while. it appears that having read this draft response, some OIF folk would like to spend some time clarifying the questions. Thanks, Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 8:50 PM Subject: Draft response to OIF on 1:n protection > Hi, > > Thanks to those who have sent me off-list comments. > > Here is a draft response to the OIF on 1:n protection. Please send me (or > the list) your comments. > > Thanks, > Adrian > > === > Dear Jim, > > Thank you for your communication to CCAMP on the use of GMPLS to provide > 1:n protection at the OIF UNI and the OIF E-NNI. > > We are grateful for this opportunity to comment, but we note that this > type of communication requesting clarifications is better suited to a > mailing list discussion than to official communications that, by their > nature, have a slow turn-around. The appropriate place for > discussions of GMPLS protocols is the CCAMP working group > mailing list. Details of how to subscribe to the mailing list can be found > at http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ccamp-charter.html > >> Future updates to OIF UNI and E-NNI signaling may include a feature >> for 1:N connection protection. The attached document presents >> requirements for these features. Recently a review was completed >> of RFCs 4426, 4427 and 4428 and IETF drafts that may be able to >> implement this function (including draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery- >> e2e-signaling-03 and draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-segment-recovery-02). >> It appears that the abstract messages from RFC 4426 provide much >> of this functionality, however several questions resulted from this >> review. OIF would appreciate review and comments from IETF >>CCAMP on the following items. >> >> 1.) OIF would appreciate knowing if there are protocol features in >> other IETF documents relevant to 1:N protection . > > We would like to suggest that, in order to utilize advanced features of > the GMPLS control plane protocol, engineers should be familiar with > the full set of GMPLS RFCs and Internet-Drafts. These are listed on > the CCAMP charter page and can be downloaded free of charge by > clicking on the links. > > Although not all of this work is directly related to protection and > restoration, it should be noted that any protocol aspect present for a > working path may also be required for a protection path. Protocol > engineers must, therefore, be familiar with the details of the protocol > before attempting to provide advanced functions like protection. > >> 2.) RFC 4426 section 2.5.2 says "it MAY be possible for the LSPs >> on the working link to be mapped to the protection link without >> re-signaling each individual LSP" and "it MAY be possible to change >> the component links without needing to re-signal each individual LSP". >> OIF would like to know what signaling messages and objects can be >> used to accomplish this. > > Your question is confusing in the light of the referenced section. > The section describes the messages required to achieve span protection. > Clearly, if a span is protected, then all LSPs carried over that span > may be transparently protected. This is how normal link protection > operates and there is nothing clever going on. > > Recall that section 2.5.2 is a subsection of section 2, and this is > entirely dedicated to span protection. > > Further, if the bundling example is followed, the referenced RFC > (RFC4201) explains the signaling necessary to achieve bundling. > > You may find it easier to consider this as a layering architecture. The > span (link) that is protected is a lower layer commodity and its > protection may be, therefore, transparent to the higher layer. > > If you have a specific question we would be happy to answer. > >> 3.) It is suggested that the Failure Indication Message (or >> equivalent) from RFC 4426 can be triggered not only from a >> failure but also a command from a management system. > > You have not asked a specific question here so it is hard to give any > answer except for "yes". > > Management systems are usually regarded as supreme. A management > system can instruct an implementation to do anything, and this may be > useful for forced or controlled switch-over. You may want to refer to > RFC4427 section 4.13. > >> 4.) A goal of the 1:N protection is to use a bulk notification and >> recovery procedure, based on RFC 4427 section 4.15. However, that RFC >> states the corresponding recovery switching actions are performed at >> the LSP level. It would be useful to know if bulk processing could be >> applied to recovery of individual connection segments on the failed span, >> not entire LSPs. > > We do not understand your question. Each LSP has its own entry in the > switching matrix. Any switching recovery action that is required can > only be applied to this individual entry. Implementations may have some > optimisations (such as back-up, pre-programmed matrices, or magic matrix > re-program commands), but this is clearly out of scope of a control > plane specification. > > Please note that recovery switching actions are not signaling actions. > > We are also confused as to the meaning of "It would be useful to know if > bulk processing could be applied to recovery of individual connection > segments on the failed span, not entire LSPs." To process it further, we > probably need to deconstruct the term Connection Segment. As you may be > aware, the term 'connection segment' is not widely used in the ASON > Recommendations and does not find a definition there. The reference from > G.8081 is to an ATM forum document. > > We assume that you are concerned to provide end-to-end data transfer. > Presumably you are interested in a variety of symmetrical cases such as > client-layer connectivity, UNI-C to UNI-C connectivity, UNI-N to UNI-N > connectivity, or UNI-N/E-NNI to E-NNI/UNI-N connectivity. The path > between these points is an LSP (it may be a hierarchical LSP through which > other LSPs are tunneled) and it is this path that you wish to protect. > Whether you perform span, segment, or end-to-end protection, you are still > protecting the LSP. > >> 5.) RFC 4426 refers to three abstract messages involved in the >> reversion sequence: >> >> - A Bridge and Switch Request message from the source node after it >> has bridged traffic back to both working and protection links. >> >> - A Bridge and Switch Response message from the destination node after >> it has bridged traffic back to both working and protection links and >> changed its selector to the working link. >> >> - A Bridge and Switch Completed message from the source node after it >> has changed its selector to the working link and stopped sending traffic >> on the protection link (so the destination can stop transmitting on >> protection). >> >> Since RFC 4426 covers these Bridge and Switch messages briefly, more >> details should be specified on the operation and behavior in this >> reversion process. > > If you have specific questions, we would be happy to answer them. If you > believe that additional documentation is required, we would welcome your > contributions as an Internet-Draft. > >> Further, it would be helpful to understand why the actions are >> performed by source and destination nodes rather than master and >> slave nodes. It may be appropriate to reuse the master/slave roles >> in the reversion process just as is done in the switchover process. > > There is a distinction between the node that invokes a switchover > process (the master) and a node that performs the process. For > example, a Bridge and Switch Request message is sent by the source > node after it has bridged traffic back to both working and protection > links simply because the source node has performed the bridging and > is the only node that can know this fact. > >> In addition, RFC 4426 does not include an abstract message similar to >> the Failure Indication Message to request the beginning of the reversion >> procedure. It may be beneficial to include a message from the slave >> device to initiate reversion, just as there is a Failure Indication >> Message >> to initiate switchover. (RFC 4426 states that the Failure Indication >> Message may not be needed when the transport plane technology >> itself provides such a notification. The same may apply when a failure >> is cleared; however, there should still be an optional message to >> trigger the reversion process.) > > Reversion is described as an administrative procedure quite > deliberately. In our view it should not be a rapid response to a > specific situation triggered through the control plane by the 'master', > but should be a considered operation under the control of administrative > policy. The trigger is, therefore, outside the scope of the control plane. > This is in section 4.13 of RFC4427. > > We hope this answers your questions, and we would be happy to enter into > further dialog on these topics. > > Best regards, > Adrian Farrel and Deborah Brungard > CCAMP co-chairs > > > > > > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 25 May 2006 11:10:51 +0000 Message-ID: <049901c67feb$a21c8ce0$0a23fea9@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> To: "Yakov Rekhter" <yakov@juniper.net> Cc: "Loa Andersson" <loa@pi.se>, "Yakov Rekhter" <yakov@juniper.net>, <mpls@ietf.org>, "ccamp" <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, "George Swallow" <swallow@cisco.com>, "Deborah Brungard" <dbrungard@att.com>, "Ross Callon" <rcallon@juniper.net>, "Bill Fenner" <fenner@research.att.com> Subject: Re: working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-05.txt Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 12:08:50 +0100 Organization: Old Dog Consulting MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yakov, >> > Few observations and suggestions... >> > >> > (a) <Ingress LSR IP address, P2MP ID> tuple is both necessary and >> > sufficient to unambiguously identify a P2MP Tunnel. >> > >> > (b) Further <Ingress LSR IP address, P2MP ID, LSP ID> is both >> > necessary and sufficient to identify a P2MP LSP. >> >> Clearly these two statements depend on the definition of "P2MP ID" as you >> pointed out below. >> >> As the I-D says... >> The P2MP ID provides an identifier for the set of destinations of the >> P2MP TE Tunnel. > > Does this identifier have a globally unique scope, or only the scope > of the root ? If the former, then what are the procedures for > assigning such identifiers ? Good questions. Presumably, if we want to retain the concept of Session (which appeared to be the case in discussion amongst the authors) then the P2MP ID has to have global scope. Not sure whether the procedures for assigning the identifiers has to be in scope of this document. The procedure for assigning IP addresses to P2P tunnel destinations does not appear to be in scope for RFC3209. It is worth looking at RFC4461 for more information on the P2MP ID. This gives us: A unique identifier of a P2MP TE LSP, which is constant for the whole LSP regardless of the number of branches and/or leaves. which is not as hepful as it could have been :-( I think you are right to try to flush this sort of thing out now rather than let us get into the ambiguity mess that we got to with RFC3209. >> And this means that there is not a one-to-one relationship between P2MP >> ID >> and P2MP Tunnel even within the scope of a single ingress. >> >> Although this was debated (the ingress could uniquely assign one ID per >> tunnel) we recognized: >> >> i. The Tunnel ID field already performs this function >> ii. It may be desirable to identify common sets of destinations >> >> The best example of ii. that was discussed would allow you to place a >> multicast IP address in the P2MP ID field. This is not mandatory (and >> some >> people think it is a bad idea :-), but the specification was designed to >> allow it. >> >> If an implementation chose to set P2MP ID = Tunnel ID, I guess that would >> be >> very fine with everyone. > > For one thing, this would limit the number of tunnels that could be > originated by a particular root node to 2^16. > > It would also rule out the ability to place a multicast IP address in > the P2MP ID field. Well, we already have the 2^16 limit for P2P tunnels. Are people running up against this limit? This can easily be seen as a separate set of 2^16 tunnels because a different object is used to encode the information, but this is a point that should definitely be clarified in the I-D: what is the relationship between the Tunnel IDs in P2P and P2MP Sessions? You're right that an implementation that sets P2MP ID = Tunnel ID cannot also set P2MP ID = multicast IP address. Whether this discussion is even meaningful depends on whether the scope of the P2MP ID uniqueness is global (can't use Tunnel ID) or ingress (can use Tunnel ID, or multicast address, or timestamp, or anything). >> > Therefore I would suggest that draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-05.txt >> > should say the following: >> > >> > 1. A P2MP tunnel is identified by a tuple <root node IP address, >> > index>, where the index value is unique within the scope of the IP >> > address of the root node. The P2MP tunnel identifier <root node >> > IP address, index> is unique within the same scope as the root node >> > IP address. >> > >> > 2. Both the Extended Tunnel ID and the Tunnel Sender Address fields >> > carry the root node IP address (both fields carry the same value). >> > The index is carried in the P2MP ID. >> >> I don't believe we should force the Extended Tunnel ID like this when an >> existing RFC defines another use albeit in the P2P context. > > What are exactly the (practical) problems with carrying the root > node IP address both in the Extended Tunnel ID and in the Tunnel > Sender Address fields ? You cannot do Session-based resource sharing across multiple sources. If you recall, RFC3209 says: To uniquely identify a TE tunnel, we use the combination of the destination IP address (an address of the node which is the egress of the tunnel), a Tunnel ID, and the tunnel ingress node's IP address, which is placed in the Extended Tunnel ID field. which supports what you say, but also: Extended Tunnel ID A 32-bit identifier used in the SESSION that remains constant over the life of the tunnel. Normally set to all zeros. Ingress nodes that wish to narrow the scope of a SESSION to the ingress-egress pair may place their IPv4 address here as a globally unique identifier. Is there any *practical* impact? Well, *if* the two fields are always going to carry the same information, clearly the second field is redundant. If the field is redundant, it can be used for other purposes if and when they are found. If that is the case, don't force it to be set to an irrelevant value in this I-D. Cheers, Adrian Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 24 May 2006 21:28:36 +0000 Message-Id: <200605242128.k4OLSB506950@merlot.juniper.net> To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> cc: "Loa Andersson" <loa@pi.se>, "Yakov Rekhter" <yakov@juniper.net>, mpls@ietf.org, "ccamp" <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, "George Swallow" <swallow@cisco.com>, "Deborah Brungard" <dbrungard@att.com>, "Ross Callon" <rcallon@juniper.net>, "Bill Fenner" <fenner@research.att.com> Subject: Re: working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-05.txt MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <83398.1148506091.1@juniper.net> Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 14:28:11 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Adrian, > > Few observations and suggestions... > > > > (a) <Ingress LSR IP address, P2MP ID> tuple is both necessary and > > sufficient to unambiguously identify a P2MP Tunnel. > > > > (b) Further <Ingress LSR IP address, P2MP ID, LSP ID> is both > > necessary and sufficient to identify a P2MP LSP. > > Clearly these two statements depend on the definition of "P2MP ID" as you > pointed out below. > > As the I-D says... > The P2MP ID provides an identifier for the set of destinations of the > P2MP TE Tunnel. Does this identifier have a globally unique scope, or only the scope of the root ? If the former, then what are the procedures for assigning such identifiers ? > And this means that there is not a one-to-one relationship between P2MP ID > and P2MP Tunnel even within the scope of a single ingress. > > Although this was debated (the ingress could uniquely assign one ID per > tunnel) we recognized: > > i. The Tunnel ID field already performs this function > ii. It may be desirable to identify common sets of destinations > > The best example of ii. that was discussed would allow you to place a > multicast IP address in the P2MP ID field. This is not mandatory (and some > people think it is a bad idea :-), but the specification was designed to > allow it. > > If an implementation chose to set P2MP ID = Tunnel ID, I guess that would be > very fine with everyone. For one thing, this would limit the number of tunnels that could be originated by a particular root node to 2^16. It would also rule out the ability to place a multicast IP address in the P2MP ID field. > > Therefore I would suggest that draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-05.txt > > should say the following: > > > > 1. A P2MP tunnel is identified by a tuple <root node IP address, > > index>, where the index value is unique within the scope of the IP > > address of the root node. The P2MP tunnel identifier <root node > > IP address, index> is unique within the same scope as the root node > > IP address. > > > > 2. Both the Extended Tunnel ID and the Tunnel Sender Address fields > > carry the root node IP address (both fields carry the same value). > > The index is carried in the P2MP ID. > > I don't believe we should force the Extended Tunnel ID like this when an > existing RFC defines another use albeit in the P2P context. What are exactly the (practical) problems with carrying the root node IP address both in the Extended Tunnel ID and in the Tunnel Sender Address fields ? Yakov. Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 24 May 2006 20:59:48 +0000 Message-ID: <034501c67f74$c42e2450$0a23fea9@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> To: "Loa Andersson" <loa@pi.se>, "Yakov Rekhter" <yakov@juniper.net> Cc: <mpls@ietf.org>, "ccamp" <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, "George Swallow" <swallow@cisco.com>, "Deborah Brungard" <dbrungard@att.com>, "Ross Callon" <rcallon@juniper.net>, "Bill Fenner" <fenner@research.att.com> Subject: Re: working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-05.txt Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 18:47:19 +0100 Organization: Old Dog Consulting MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Yakov, > Few observations and suggestions... > > (a) <Ingress LSR IP address, P2MP ID> tuple is both necessary and > sufficient to unambiguously identify a P2MP Tunnel. > > (b) Further <Ingress LSR IP address, P2MP ID, LSP ID> is both > necessary and sufficient to identify a P2MP LSP. Clearly these two statements depend on the definition of "P2MP ID" as you pointed out below. As the I-D says... The P2MP ID provides an identifier for the set of destinations of the P2MP TE Tunnel. And this means that there is not a one-to-one relationship between P2MP ID and P2MP Tunnel even within the scope of a single ingress. Although this was debated (the ingress could uniquely assign one ID per tunnel) we recognized: i. The Tunnel ID field already performs this function ii. It may be desirable to identify common sets of destinations The best example of ii. that was discussed would allow you to place a multicast IP address in the P2MP ID field. This is not mandatory (and some people think it is a bad idea :-), but the specification was designed to allow it. If an implementation chose to set P2MP ID = Tunnel ID, I guess that would be very fine with everyone. > Therefore I would suggest that draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-05.txt > should say the following: > > 1. A P2MP tunnel is identified by a tuple <root node IP address, > index>, where the index value is unique within the scope of the IP > address of the root node. The P2MP tunnel identifier <root node > IP address, index> is unique within the same scope as the root node > IP address. > > 2. Both the Extended Tunnel ID and the Tunnel Sender Address fields > carry the root node IP address (both fields carry the same value). > The index is carried in the P2MP ID. I don't believe we should force the Extended Tunnel ID like this when an existing RFC defines another use albeit in the P2P context. > 3. Tunnel ID field should be set to all zeros, and be ignored on > receipt. > > 4. A P2MP LSP is identified by a combination of tunnel identifier > (<root node IP address, index>), and LSP ID. > > With this in mind sections 4.1, 4.2, 19.1 and 19.2 should be modified > to clarify the following: > > (a) SESSION identifier; > (b) semantics of Extended Tunnel ID; semantics of the P2MP ID; > (c) semantics of the Tunnel ID IP address in the SENDER_TEMPLATE. Cheers, Adrian Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 24 May 2006 16:35:56 +0000 Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 09:34:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Rahul Aggarwal <rahul@juniper.net> To: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> cc: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.se>, mpls@ietf.org, ccamp <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, George Swallow <swallow@cisco.com>, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, Deborah Brungard <dbrungard@att.com>, Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net>, Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com> Subject: Re: working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-05.txt Message-ID: <20060524092915.D26008@sapphire.juniper.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hi Yakov, Thanks for the comments. Please see below: On Wed, 24 May 2006, Yakov Rekhter wrote: > Loa and George, > > > Working Group, > > > > this initiates a two week working group last call on > > draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-05.txt > > > > please send comments to the MPLS working group mailling > > list and/or working co-chairs. > > > > The last call ends eob May 28th. > > > > The ccamp mailing list copied as this is a work that has > > an overlap between the working groups. > > > > Loa and George > > Few observations and suggestions... > > (a) <Ingress LSR IP address, P2MP ID> tuple is both necessary and > sufficient to unambiguously identify a P2MP Tunnel. > > (b) Further <Ingress LSR IP address, P2MP ID, LSP ID> is both > necessary and sufficient to identify a P2MP LSP. > Agreed. > Therefore I would suggest that draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-05.txt > should say the following: > > 1. A P2MP tunnel is identified by a tuple <root node IP address, > index>, where the index value is unique within the scope of the IP > address of the root node. The P2MP tunnel identifier <root node > IP address, index> is unique within the same scope as the root node > IP address. > Ok. > 2. Both the Extended Tunnel ID and the Tunnel Sender Address fields > carry the root node IP address (both fields carry the same value). > The index is carried in the P2MP ID. > Ok. > 3. Tunnel ID field should be set to all zeros, and be ignored on > receipt. > Ok. > 4. A P2MP LSP is identified by a combination of tunnel identifier > (<root node IP address, index>), and LSP ID. > Ok. > With this in mind sections 4.1, 4.2, 19.1 and 19.2 should be modified > to clarify the following: > > (a) SESSION identifier; > (b) semantics of Extended Tunnel ID; semantics of the P2MP ID; > (c) semantics of the Tunnel ID IP address in the SENDER_TEMPLATE. > How about the following rephrasing: 1. Section 4.1: " A P2MP TE Tunnel comprises one or more P2MP LSPs. A P2MP TE Tunnel is identified by a P2MP SESSION object. This object contains the identifier of the P2MP Session which includes the P2MP ID, a tunnel ID and an extended tunnel ID. The fields of a P2MP SESSION object are identical to those of the SESSION object defined in [RFC3209] except that the Tunnel Endpoint Address field is replaced by the P2MP Identifier (P2MP ID) field. The P2MP ID provides an identifier for the set of destinations of the P2MP TE Tunnel." to " A P2MP TE Tunnel comprises one or more P2MP LSPs. A P2MP TE Tunnel is identified by a P2MP SESSION object. This object contains the identifier of the P2MP Session which includes a tuple <Ingress LSR IP address, P2MP Identifier>, where the P2MP Identifier (P2MP ID) is unique within the scope of the IP address of the ingress LSR. The Ingress LSR IP address is encoded in the Extended Tunnel ID. Th P2MP Tunnel identifier, carried in the P2MP SESSION object, is unique within the same scope as the ingress LSR IP address. The fields of the P2MP SESSION object are identical to those of the SESSION object defined in [RFC3209] except that the Tunnel Endpoint Address field is replaced by the P2MP ID field." 2. Section 4.2. " A P2MP LSP is identified by the combination of the P2MP ID, Tunnel ID, and Extended Tunnel ID that are part of the P2MP SESSION object, and the tunnel sender address and LSP ID fields of the P2MP SENDER_TEMPLATE object. The new P2MP SENDER_TEMPLATE object is defined in section 20.2." to " A P2MP LSP is identified by the combination of the P2MP ID, Extended Tunnel ID that are part of the P2MP SESSION object, and the tunnel sender address and LSP ID fields of the P2MP SENDER_TEMPLATE object. The new P2MP SENDER_TEMPLATE object is defined in section 20.2." 3. 19.1.1 "P2MP ID A 32-bit identifier used in the SESSION object that remains constant over the life of the P2MP tunnel. It encodes the P2MP ID and identifies the set of destinations of the P2MP Tunnel." to "P2MP ID A 32-bit identifier used in the SESSION object that remains constant over the life of the P2MP tunnel. It encodes the P2MP Identifier that is unique within the scope of the Ingress LSR IP address carried in the Extended Tunnel ID. 4. 19.1.1 "Tunnel ID A 16-bit identifier used in the SESSION object that remains constant over the life of the P2MP tunnel." to "Tunnel ID A 16-bit identifier used in the SESSION object that remains constant over the life of the P2MP tunnel. It SHOULD be set to 0 by the ingress LSR and be ignored on receipt." 5. "Extended Tunnel ID A 32-bit identifier used in the SESSION object that remains constant over the life of the P2MP tunnel. Normally set to all zeros. Ingress nodes that wish to narrow the scope of a SESSION to the ingress-PID pair may place their IPv4 address here as a globally unique identifier [RFC3209]." to "Extended Tunnel ID A 32-bit identifier used in the SESSION object that remains constant over the life of the P2MP tunnel. This identifier MUST be set to the ingress LSR's IPv4 address." 6. 19.1.2 "This is same as the P2MP IPv4 LSP SESSION Object with the difference that the extended tunnel ID may be set to a 16 byte identifier [RFC3209]." to "This is same as the P2MP IPv4 LSP SESSION Object with the difference that the extended tunnel ID MUST be set to a 16 byte identifier that is the ingress LSR's IPv6 address." 7. 19.2.1 " IPv4 tunnel sender address See [RFC3209]" to" "IPv4 tunnel sender address. This address MUST be the same as the address in the Extended Tunnel ID field of the SESSION object." 8. 19.2.2 "IPv6 tunnel sender address See [RFC3209]" to "IPv6 tunnel sender address. This address MUST be the same as the address in the Extended Tunnel ID field of the SESSION object." Thanks, rahul > Yakov. > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 24 May 2006 15:35:59 +0000 Message-Id: <200605241534.k4OFYq531939@merlot.juniper.net> To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.se> cc: mpls@ietf.org, ccamp <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, George Swallow <swallow@cisco.com>, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, Deborah Brungard <dbrungard@att.com>, Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net>, Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com> Subject: Re: working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-05.txt MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <38544.1148484892.1@juniper.net> Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 08:34:52 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Loa and George, > Working Group, > > this initiates a two week working group last call on > draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-05.txt > > please send comments to the MPLS working group mailling > list and/or working co-chairs. > > The last call ends eob May 28th. > > The ccamp mailing list copied as this is a work that has > an overlap between the working groups. > > Loa and George Few observations and suggestions... (a) <Ingress LSR IP address, P2MP ID> tuple is both necessary and sufficient to unambiguously identify a P2MP Tunnel. (b) Further <Ingress LSR IP address, P2MP ID, LSP ID> is both necessary and sufficient to identify a P2MP LSP. Therefore I would suggest that draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-05.txt should say the following: 1. A P2MP tunnel is identified by a tuple <root node IP address, index>, where the index value is unique within the scope of the IP address of the root node. The P2MP tunnel identifier <root node IP address, index> is unique within the same scope as the root node IP address. 2. Both the Extended Tunnel ID and the Tunnel Sender Address fields carry the root node IP address (both fields carry the same value). The index is carried in the P2MP ID. 3. Tunnel ID field should be set to all zeros, and be ignored on receipt. 4. A P2MP LSP is identified by a combination of tunnel identifier (<root node IP address, index>), and LSP ID. With this in mind sections 4.1, 4.2, 19.1 and 19.2 should be modified to clarify the following: (a) SESSION identifier; (b) semantics of Extended Tunnel ID; semantics of the P2MP ID; (c) semantics of the Tunnel ID IP address in the SENDER_TEMPLATE. Yakov. Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 24 May 2006 07:50:55 +0000 Sensitivity: Subject: A nerw ID is available on the repository draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-00 To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Cc: "Dan Li <danli" <danli@huawei.com>, "Dino Bramanti" <Dino.Bramanti@marconi.com> Message-ID: <OF6BF7B4B4.F8193781-ONC1257178.002A14DC-C1257178.002AF97C@uk.marconicomms.com> From: "Diego Caviglia" <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com> Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 09:48:25 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii A new ID is available on the ID repository http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-00.txt. The ID states some basic requrements for the possibility of turning a Permanent Connection (PC) into a Soft Permanent Connection (SPC) and vice versa, without actually affecting Data Plane traffic, no solutions are proposed in the ID. Abstract From a Carrier perspective, the possibility of turning a Permanent Connection (PC) into a Soft Permanent Connection (SPC) and vice versa, without actually affecting Data Plane traffic being carried over it, is a valuable option. In other terms, such operation can be seen as a way of transferring the ownership and control of an existing and in-use Data Plane connection between the Management Plane and the Control Plane, leaving its Data Plane state untouched. This memo sets out the requirements for such procedures within a Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) network. Comments and suggestions are very welcome sxpecially from the carrier community. Regards Diego Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 23 May 2006 17:52:04 +0000 Message-ID: <024a01c67e91$6ecd16d0$0a23fea9@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> To: "MEURIC Julien RD-CORE-LAN" <julien.meuric@francetelecom.com>, <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Subject: Re: Draft response to OIF on 1:n protection Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 18:50:31 +0100 Organization: Old Dog Consulting MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit OK, Thanks. I can fold that in with a bit more clarity on the master/slave thing. Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: "MEURIC Julien RD-CORE-LAN" <julien.meuric@francetelecom.com> To: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>; <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 2:35 PM Subject: RE: Draft response to OIF on 1:n protection Hi Adrian, hi all. I have the feeling that the OIF may have prefered to ask CCAMP instead of taking into account the mentioned draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling-03 and draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-segment-recovery-02 -- which seem to answer several of their questions. That might be due to the fact they are not RFCs yet, so it may be useful to inform the OIF of the current status of these and reassure about their significance. A few more comments in line. -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel [...] > 5.) RFC 4426 refers to three abstract messages involved in the > reversion sequence: > > - A Bridge and Switch Request message from the source node after it > has bridged traffic back to both working and protection links. > > - A Bridge and Switch Response message from the destination node after > it has bridged traffic back to both working and protection links and > changed its selector to the working link. > > - A Bridge and Switch Completed message from the source node after it > has changed its selector to the working link and stopped sending traffic > on the protection link (so the destination can stop transmitting on > protection). > > Since RFC 4426 covers these Bridge and Switch messages briefly, more > details should be specified on the operation and behavior in this > reversion process. If you have specific questions, we would be happy to answer them. If you believe that additional documentation is required, we would welcome your contributions as an Internet-Draft. [JM] This could be a good place to pinpoint the IDs named above. > Further, it would be helpful to understand why the actions are > performed by source and destination nodes rather than master and > slave nodes. It may be appropriate to reuse the master/slave roles > in the reversion process just as is done in the switchover process. There is a distinction between the node that invokes a switchover process (the master) and a node that performs the process. For example, a Bridge and Switch Request message is sent by the source node after it has bridged traffic back to both working and protection links simply because the source node has performed the bridging and is the only node that can know this fact. [JM] I may not really get the intial issue here but I'm also confused by the answer. My understanding was about the wording "source/destination" vs "master/slave"; in that case we should rather restate why "source" and "destination" are relevant here. But maybe I need a coffee... ;-) [...] Regards, Julien Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 23 May 2006 13:37:16 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Draft response to OIF on 1:n protection Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 15:35:35 +0200 Message-ID: <7DBAFEC6A76F3E42817DF1EBE64CB02603745C0C@FTRDMEL2.rd.francetelecom.fr> Thread-Topic: Draft response to OIF on 1:n protection Thread-Index: AcZ92rrllH3TeHH8SvuO3kjZPhyXFwAgseFg From: "MEURIC Julien RD-CORE-LAN" <julien.meuric@francetelecom.com> To: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Hi Adrian, hi all. I have the feeling that the OIF may have prefered to ask CCAMP instead = of taking into account the mentioned = draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling-03 and = draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-segment-recovery-02 -- which seem to answer = several of their questions. That might be due to the fact they are not = RFCs yet, so it may be useful to inform the OIF of the current status of = these and reassure about their significance. A few more comments in line. -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On = Behalf Of Adrian Farrel [...] > 5.) RFC 4426 refers to three abstract messages involved in the > reversion sequence: > > - A Bridge and Switch Request message from the source node after it > has bridged traffic back to both working and protection links. > > - A Bridge and Switch Response message from the destination node after > it has bridged traffic back to both working and protection links and > changed its selector to the working link. > > - A Bridge and Switch Completed message from the source node after it > has changed its selector to the working link and stopped sending = traffic > on the protection link (so the destination can stop transmitting on > protection). > > Since RFC 4426 covers these Bridge and Switch messages briefly, more > details should be specified on the operation and behavior in this > reversion process. If you have specific questions, we would be happy to answer them. If you believe that additional documentation is required, we would welcome your contributions as an Internet-Draft. [JM] This could be a good place to pinpoint the IDs named above. > Further, it would be helpful to understand why the actions are > performed by source and destination nodes rather than master and > slave nodes. It may be appropriate to reuse the master/slave roles > in the reversion process just as is done in the switchover process. There is a distinction between the node that invokes a switchover process (the master) and a node that performs the process. For example, a Bridge and Switch Request message is sent by the source node after it has bridged traffic back to both working and protection links simply because the source node has performed the bridging and is the only node that can know this fact. [JM] I may not really get the intial issue here but I'm also confused by = the answer. My understanding was about the wording "source/destination" = vs "master/slave"; in that case we should rather restate why "source" = and "destination" are relevant here. But maybe I need a coffee... ;-) [...] Regards, Julien Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 22 May 2006 23:13:38 +0000 Message-ID: <019101c67df5$359efff0$0a23fea9@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> To: "Wataru Imajuku" <imajuku.wataru@lab.ntt.co.jp> Cc: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Subject: Re: Draft response to OIF on 1:n protection Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 00:12:27 +0100 Organization: Old Dog Consulting MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Wataru, Thanks for your mail. I wonder if you could clarify precisely which proposal you are referring to in the OIF communication and how you believe it should be taken forward. Thanks, Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wataru Imajuku" <imajuku.wataru@lab.ntt.co.jp> To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Cc: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 11:03 PM Subject: Re: Draft response to OIF on 1:n protection > Hi, Adrian and all > > Thank you for introducing proposal from OIF. > > I think this proposal is valuable to add specification > in RFC 4426/4427/4428 and related drafts. > The proposed functionality can enhances applicability of GMPLS protocols > to enhance the reliability of networks. > > Best Regards > Wataru@NTT > > > At 04:50 06/05/23, Adrian Farrel wrote: > >Hi, > > > >Thanks to those who have sent me off-list comments. > > > >Here is a draft response to the OIF on 1:n protection. Please send me (or > >the list) your comments. > > > >Thanks, > >Adrian > > > >=== > >Dear Jim, > > > >Thank you for your communication to CCAMP on the use of GMPLS to provide > >1:n protection at the OIF UNI and the OIF E-NNI. > > > >We are grateful for this opportunity to comment, but we note that this > >type of communication requesting clarifications is better suited to a > >mailing list discussion than to official communications that, by their > >nature, have a slow turn-around. The appropriate place for > >discussions of GMPLS protocols is the CCAMP working group > >mailing list. Details of how to subscribe to the mailing list can be > found at http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ccamp-charter.html > > > >> Future updates to OIF UNI and E-NNI signaling may include a feature > >> for 1:N connection protection. The attached document presents > >> requirements for these features. Recently a review was completed > >> of RFCs 4426, 4427 and 4428 and IETF drafts that may be able to > >> implement this function (including draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery- > >> e2e-signaling-03 and draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-segment-recovery-02). > >> It appears that the abstract messages from RFC 4426 provide much > >> of this functionality, however several questions resulted from this > >> review. OIF would appreciate review and comments from IETF > >>CCAMP on the following items. > >> > >> 1.) OIF would appreciate knowing if there are protocol features in > >> other IETF documents relevant to 1:N protection . > > > >We would like to suggest that, in order to utilize advanced features of > >the GMPLS control plane protocol, engineers should be familiar with > >the full set of GMPLS RFCs and Internet-Drafts. These are listed on > >the CCAMP charter page and can be downloaded free of charge by > >clicking on the links. > > > >Although not all of this work is directly related to protection and > >restoration, it should be noted that any protocol aspect present for a > >working path may also be required for a protection path. Protocol > >engineers must, therefore, be familiar with the details of the protocol > >before attempting to provide advanced functions like protection. > > > >> 2.) RFC 4426 section 2.5.2 says "it MAY be possible for the LSPs > >> on the working link to be mapped to the protection link without > >> re-signaling each individual LSP" and "it MAY be possible to change > >> the component links without needing to re-signal each individual LSP". > >> OIF would like to know what signaling messages and objects can be > >> used to accomplish this. > > > >Your question is confusing in the light of the referenced section. > >The section describes the messages required to achieve span protection. > >Clearly, if a span is protected, then all LSPs carried over that span > >may be transparently protected. This is how normal link protection > >operates and there is nothing clever going on. > > > >Recall that section 2.5.2 is a subsection of section 2, and this is > >entirely dedicated to span protection. > > > >Further, if the bundling example is followed, the referenced RFC > >(RFC4201) explains the signaling necessary to achieve bundling. > > > >You may find it easier to consider this as a layering architecture. The > >span (link) that is protected is a lower layer commodity and its > >protection may be, therefore, transparent to the higher layer. > > > >If you have a specific question we would be happy to answer. > > > >> 3.) It is suggested that the Failure Indication Message (or > >> equivalent) from RFC 4426 can be triggered not only from a > >> failure but also a command from a management system. > > > >You have not asked a specific question here so it is hard to give any > >answer except for "yes". > > > >Management systems are usually regarded as supreme. A management > >system can instruct an implementation to do anything, and this may be > >useful for forced or controlled switch-over. You may want to refer to > >RFC4427 section 4.13. > > > >> 4.) A goal of the 1:N protection is to use a bulk notification and > >> recovery procedure, based on RFC 4427 section 4.15. However, that RFC > >> states the corresponding recovery switching actions are performed at > >> the LSP level. It would be useful to know if bulk processing could be > >> applied to recovery of individual connection segments on the failed > >> span, > >> not entire LSPs. > > > >We do not understand your question. Each LSP has its own entry in the > >switching matrix. Any switching recovery action that is required can > >only be applied to this individual entry. Implementations may have some > >optimisations (such as back-up, pre-programmed matrices, or magic matrix > >re-program commands), but this is clearly out of scope of a control > >plane specification. > > > >Please note that recovery switching actions are not signaling actions. > > > >We are also confused as to the meaning of "It would be useful to know if > >bulk processing could be applied to recovery of individual connection > >segments on the failed span, not entire LSPs." To process it further, we > >probably need to deconstruct the term Connection Segment. As you may be > >aware, the term 'connection segment' is not widely used in the ASON > >Recommendations and does not find a definition there. The reference from > >G.8081 is to an ATM forum document. > > > >We assume that you are concerned to provide end-to-end data transfer. > >Presumably you are interested in a variety of symmetrical cases such as > >client-layer connectivity, UNI-C to UNI-C connectivity, UNI-N to UNI-N > >connectivity, or UNI-N/E-NNI to E-NNI/UNI-N connectivity. The path > >between these points is an LSP (it may be a hierarchical LSP through > >which > >other LSPs are tunneled) and it is this path that you wish to protect. > >Whether you perform span, segment, or end-to-end protection, you are > >still > >protecting the LSP. > > > >> 5.) RFC 4426 refers to three abstract messages involved in the > >> reversion sequence: > >> > >> - A Bridge and Switch Request message from the source node after it > >> has bridged traffic back to both working and protection links. > >> > >> - A Bridge and Switch Response message from the destination node after > >> it has bridged traffic back to both working and protection links and > >> changed its selector to the working link. > >> > >> - A Bridge and Switch Completed message from the source node after it > >> has changed its selector to the working link and stopped sending > >> traffic > >> on the protection link (so the destination can stop transmitting on > >> protection). > >> > >> Since RFC 4426 covers these Bridge and Switch messages briefly, more > >> details should be specified on the operation and behavior in this > >> reversion process. > > > >If you have specific questions, we would be happy to answer them. If you > >believe that additional documentation is required, we would welcome your > >contributions as an Internet-Draft. > > > >> Further, it would be helpful to understand why the actions are > >> performed by source and destination nodes rather than master and > >> slave nodes. It may be appropriate to reuse the master/slave roles > >> in the reversion process just as is done in the switchover process. > > > >There is a distinction between the node that invokes a switchover > >process (the master) and a node that performs the process. For > >example, a Bridge and Switch Request message is sent by the source > >node after it has bridged traffic back to both working and protection > >links simply because the source node has performed the bridging and > >is the only node that can know this fact. > > > >> In addition, RFC 4426 does not include an abstract message similar to > >> the Failure Indication Message to request the beginning of the > >> reversion > >> procedure. It may be beneficial to include a message from the slave > >> device to initiate reversion, just as there is a Failure Indication > >> Message > >> to initiate switchover. (RFC 4426 states that the Failure Indication > >> Message may not be needed when the transport plane technology > >> itself provides such a notification. The same may apply when a failure > >> is cleared; however, there should still be an optional message to > >> trigger the reversion process.) > > > >Reversion is described as an administrative procedure quite > >deliberately. In our view it should not be a rapid response to a > >specific situation triggered through the control plane by the 'master', > >but should be a considered operation under the control of administrative > >policy. The trigger is, therefore, outside the scope of the control > >plane. > >This is in section 4.13 of RFC4427. > > > >We hope this answers your questions, and we would be happy to enter into > >further dialog on these topics. > > > >Best regards, > >Adrian Farrel and Deborah Brungard > >CCAMP co-chairs > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------- > Wataru Imajuku@NTT Network Innovation Labs > TEL: +81-46-859-4315 > FAX: +81-468-59-5541 > > > > > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 22 May 2006 22:03:57 +0000 Message-Id: <6.0.0.20.2.20060523065153.06651bc0@mailsv4.y.ecl.ntt.co.jp> Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 07:03:14 +0900 To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> From: Wataru Imajuku <imajuku.wataru@lab.ntt.co.jp> Subject: Re: Draft response to OIF on 1:n protection Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Adrian and all Thank you for introducing proposal from OIF. I think this proposal is valuable to add specification in RFC 4426/4427/4428 and related drafts. The proposed functionality can enhances applicability of GMPLS protocols to enhance the reliability of networks. Best Regards Wataru@NTT At 04:50 06/05/23, Adrian Farrel wrote: >Hi, > >Thanks to those who have sent me off-list comments. > >Here is a draft response to the OIF on 1:n protection. Please send me (or >the list) your comments. > >Thanks, >Adrian > >=== >Dear Jim, > >Thank you for your communication to CCAMP on the use of GMPLS to provide >1:n protection at the OIF UNI and the OIF E-NNI. > >We are grateful for this opportunity to comment, but we note that this >type of communication requesting clarifications is better suited to a >mailing list discussion than to official communications that, by their >nature, have a slow turn-around. The appropriate place for >discussions of GMPLS protocols is the CCAMP working group >mailing list. Details of how to subscribe to the mailing list can be found at http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ccamp-charter.html > >> Future updates to OIF UNI and E-NNI signaling may include a feature >> for 1:N connection protection. The attached document presents >> requirements for these features. Recently a review was completed >> of RFCs 4426, 4427 and 4428 and IETF drafts that may be able to >> implement this function (including draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery- >> e2e-signaling-03 and draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-segment-recovery-02). >> It appears that the abstract messages from RFC 4426 provide much >> of this functionality, however several questions resulted from this >> review. OIF would appreciate review and comments from IETF >>CCAMP on the following items. >> >> 1.) OIF would appreciate knowing if there are protocol features in >> other IETF documents relevant to 1:N protection . > >We would like to suggest that, in order to utilize advanced features of >the GMPLS control plane protocol, engineers should be familiar with >the full set of GMPLS RFCs and Internet-Drafts. These are listed on >the CCAMP charter page and can be downloaded free of charge by >clicking on the links. > >Although not all of this work is directly related to protection and >restoration, it should be noted that any protocol aspect present for a >working path may also be required for a protection path. Protocol >engineers must, therefore, be familiar with the details of the protocol >before attempting to provide advanced functions like protection. > >> 2.) RFC 4426 section 2.5.2 says "it MAY be possible for the LSPs >> on the working link to be mapped to the protection link without >> re-signaling each individual LSP" and "it MAY be possible to change >> the component links without needing to re-signal each individual LSP". >> OIF would like to know what signaling messages and objects can be >> used to accomplish this. > >Your question is confusing in the light of the referenced section. >The section describes the messages required to achieve span protection. >Clearly, if a span is protected, then all LSPs carried over that span >may be transparently protected. This is how normal link protection >operates and there is nothing clever going on. > >Recall that section 2.5.2 is a subsection of section 2, and this is >entirely dedicated to span protection. > >Further, if the bundling example is followed, the referenced RFC >(RFC4201) explains the signaling necessary to achieve bundling. > >You may find it easier to consider this as a layering architecture. The >span (link) that is protected is a lower layer commodity and its >protection may be, therefore, transparent to the higher layer. > >If you have a specific question we would be happy to answer. > >> 3.) It is suggested that the Failure Indication Message (or >> equivalent) from RFC 4426 can be triggered not only from a >> failure but also a command from a management system. > >You have not asked a specific question here so it is hard to give any >answer except for "yes". > >Management systems are usually regarded as supreme. A management >system can instruct an implementation to do anything, and this may be >useful for forced or controlled switch-over. You may want to refer to >RFC4427 section 4.13. > >> 4.) A goal of the 1:N protection is to use a bulk notification and >> recovery procedure, based on RFC 4427 section 4.15. However, that RFC >> states the corresponding recovery switching actions are performed at >> the LSP level. It would be useful to know if bulk processing could be >> applied to recovery of individual connection segments on the failed span, >> not entire LSPs. > >We do not understand your question. Each LSP has its own entry in the >switching matrix. Any switching recovery action that is required can >only be applied to this individual entry. Implementations may have some >optimisations (such as back-up, pre-programmed matrices, or magic matrix >re-program commands), but this is clearly out of scope of a control >plane specification. > >Please note that recovery switching actions are not signaling actions. > >We are also confused as to the meaning of "It would be useful to know if >bulk processing could be applied to recovery of individual connection >segments on the failed span, not entire LSPs." To process it further, we >probably need to deconstruct the term Connection Segment. As you may be >aware, the term 'connection segment' is not widely used in the ASON >Recommendations and does not find a definition there. The reference from >G.8081 is to an ATM forum document. > >We assume that you are concerned to provide end-to-end data transfer. >Presumably you are interested in a variety of symmetrical cases such as >client-layer connectivity, UNI-C to UNI-C connectivity, UNI-N to UNI-N >connectivity, or UNI-N/E-NNI to E-NNI/UNI-N connectivity. The path >between these points is an LSP (it may be a hierarchical LSP through which >other LSPs are tunneled) and it is this path that you wish to protect. >Whether you perform span, segment, or end-to-end protection, you are still >protecting the LSP. > >> 5.) RFC 4426 refers to three abstract messages involved in the >> reversion sequence: >> >> - A Bridge and Switch Request message from the source node after it >> has bridged traffic back to both working and protection links. >> >> - A Bridge and Switch Response message from the destination node after >> it has bridged traffic back to both working and protection links and >> changed its selector to the working link. >> >> - A Bridge and Switch Completed message from the source node after it >> has changed its selector to the working link and stopped sending traffic >> on the protection link (so the destination can stop transmitting on >> protection). >> >> Since RFC 4426 covers these Bridge and Switch messages briefly, more >> details should be specified on the operation and behavior in this >> reversion process. > >If you have specific questions, we would be happy to answer them. If you >believe that additional documentation is required, we would welcome your >contributions as an Internet-Draft. > >> Further, it would be helpful to understand why the actions are >> performed by source and destination nodes rather than master and >> slave nodes. It may be appropriate to reuse the master/slave roles >> in the reversion process just as is done in the switchover process. > >There is a distinction between the node that invokes a switchover >process (the master) and a node that performs the process. For >example, a Bridge and Switch Request message is sent by the source >node after it has bridged traffic back to both working and protection >links simply because the source node has performed the bridging and >is the only node that can know this fact. > >> In addition, RFC 4426 does not include an abstract message similar to >> the Failure Indication Message to request the beginning of the reversion >> procedure. It may be beneficial to include a message from the slave >> device to initiate reversion, just as there is a Failure Indication >> Message >> to initiate switchover. (RFC 4426 states that the Failure Indication >> Message may not be needed when the transport plane technology >> itself provides such a notification. The same may apply when a failure >> is cleared; however, there should still be an optional message to >> trigger the reversion process.) > >Reversion is described as an administrative procedure quite >deliberately. In our view it should not be a rapid response to a >specific situation triggered through the control plane by the 'master', >but should be a considered operation under the control of administrative >policy. The trigger is, therefore, outside the scope of the control plane. >This is in section 4.13 of RFC4427. > >We hope this answers your questions, and we would be happy to enter into >further dialog on these topics. > >Best regards, >Adrian Farrel and Deborah Brungard >CCAMP co-chairs > > > > > ------------------------------------- Wataru Imajuku@NTT Network Innovation Labs TEL: +81-46-859-4315 FAX: +81-468-59-5541 Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 22 May 2006 19:57:18 +0000 Message-ID: <015b01c67dd9$af1ac420$0a23fea9@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Subject: Draft response to OIF on 1:n protection Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 20:50:32 +0100 Organization: Old Dog Consulting MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Thanks to those who have sent me off-list comments. Here is a draft response to the OIF on 1:n protection. Please send me (or the list) your comments. Thanks, Adrian === Dear Jim, Thank you for your communication to CCAMP on the use of GMPLS to provide 1:n protection at the OIF UNI and the OIF E-NNI. We are grateful for this opportunity to comment, but we note that this type of communication requesting clarifications is better suited to a mailing list discussion than to official communications that, by their nature, have a slow turn-around. The appropriate place for discussions of GMPLS protocols is the CCAMP working group mailing list. Details of how to subscribe to the mailing list can be found at http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ccamp-charter.html > Future updates to OIF UNI and E-NNI signaling may include a feature > for 1:N connection protection. The attached document presents > requirements for these features. Recently a review was completed > of RFCs 4426, 4427 and 4428 and IETF drafts that may be able to > implement this function (including draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery- > e2e-signaling-03 and draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-segment-recovery-02). > It appears that the abstract messages from RFC 4426 provide much > of this functionality, however several questions resulted from this > review. OIF would appreciate review and comments from IETF >CCAMP on the following items. > > 1.) OIF would appreciate knowing if there are protocol features in > other IETF documents relevant to 1:N protection . We would like to suggest that, in order to utilize advanced features of the GMPLS control plane protocol, engineers should be familiar with the full set of GMPLS RFCs and Internet-Drafts. These are listed on the CCAMP charter page and can be downloaded free of charge by clicking on the links. Although not all of this work is directly related to protection and restoration, it should be noted that any protocol aspect present for a working path may also be required for a protection path. Protocol engineers must, therefore, be familiar with the details of the protocol before attempting to provide advanced functions like protection. > 2.) RFC 4426 section 2.5.2 says "it MAY be possible for the LSPs > on the working link to be mapped to the protection link without > re-signaling each individual LSP" and "it MAY be possible to change > the component links without needing to re-signal each individual LSP". > OIF would like to know what signaling messages and objects can be > used to accomplish this. Your question is confusing in the light of the referenced section. The section describes the messages required to achieve span protection. Clearly, if a span is protected, then all LSPs carried over that span may be transparently protected. This is how normal link protection operates and there is nothing clever going on. Recall that section 2.5.2 is a subsection of section 2, and this is entirely dedicated to span protection. Further, if the bundling example is followed, the referenced RFC (RFC4201) explains the signaling necessary to achieve bundling. You may find it easier to consider this as a layering architecture. The span (link) that is protected is a lower layer commodity and its protection may be, therefore, transparent to the higher layer. If you have a specific question we would be happy to answer. > 3.) It is suggested that the Failure Indication Message (or > equivalent) from RFC 4426 can be triggered not only from a > failure but also a command from a management system. You have not asked a specific question here so it is hard to give any answer except for "yes". Management systems are usually regarded as supreme. A management system can instruct an implementation to do anything, and this may be useful for forced or controlled switch-over. You may want to refer to RFC4427 section 4.13. > 4.) A goal of the 1:N protection is to use a bulk notification and > recovery procedure, based on RFC 4427 section 4.15. However, that RFC > states the corresponding recovery switching actions are performed at > the LSP level. It would be useful to know if bulk processing could be > applied to recovery of individual connection segments on the failed span, > not entire LSPs. We do not understand your question. Each LSP has its own entry in the switching matrix. Any switching recovery action that is required can only be applied to this individual entry. Implementations may have some optimisations (such as back-up, pre-programmed matrices, or magic matrix re-program commands), but this is clearly out of scope of a control plane specification. Please note that recovery switching actions are not signaling actions. We are also confused as to the meaning of "It would be useful to know if bulk processing could be applied to recovery of individual connection segments on the failed span, not entire LSPs." To process it further, we probably need to deconstruct the term Connection Segment. As you may be aware, the term 'connection segment' is not widely used in the ASON Recommendations and does not find a definition there. The reference from G.8081 is to an ATM forum document. We assume that you are concerned to provide end-to-end data transfer. Presumably you are interested in a variety of symmetrical cases such as client-layer connectivity, UNI-C to UNI-C connectivity, UNI-N to UNI-N connectivity, or UNI-N/E-NNI to E-NNI/UNI-N connectivity. The path between these points is an LSP (it may be a hierarchical LSP through which other LSPs are tunneled) and it is this path that you wish to protect. Whether you perform span, segment, or end-to-end protection, you are still protecting the LSP. > 5.) RFC 4426 refers to three abstract messages involved in the > reversion sequence: > > - A Bridge and Switch Request message from the source node after it > has bridged traffic back to both working and protection links. > > - A Bridge and Switch Response message from the destination node after > it has bridged traffic back to both working and protection links and > changed its selector to the working link. > > - A Bridge and Switch Completed message from the source node after it > has changed its selector to the working link and stopped sending traffic > on the protection link (so the destination can stop transmitting on > protection). > > Since RFC 4426 covers these Bridge and Switch messages briefly, more > details should be specified on the operation and behavior in this > reversion process. If you have specific questions, we would be happy to answer them. If you believe that additional documentation is required, we would welcome your contributions as an Internet-Draft. > Further, it would be helpful to understand why the actions are > performed by source and destination nodes rather than master and > slave nodes. It may be appropriate to reuse the master/slave roles > in the reversion process just as is done in the switchover process. There is a distinction between the node that invokes a switchover process (the master) and a node that performs the process. For example, a Bridge and Switch Request message is sent by the source node after it has bridged traffic back to both working and protection links simply because the source node has performed the bridging and is the only node that can know this fact. > In addition, RFC 4426 does not include an abstract message similar to > the Failure Indication Message to request the beginning of the reversion > procedure. It may be beneficial to include a message from the slave > device to initiate reversion, just as there is a Failure Indication > Message > to initiate switchover. (RFC 4426 states that the Failure Indication > Message may not be needed when the transport plane technology > itself provides such a notification. The same may apply when a failure > is cleared; however, there should still be an optional message to > trigger the reversion process.) Reversion is described as an administrative procedure quite deliberately. In our view it should not be a rapid response to a specific situation triggered through the control plane by the 'master', but should be a considered operation under the control of administrative policy. The trigger is, therefore, outside the scope of the control plane. This is in section 4.13 of RFC4427. We hope this answers your questions, and we would be happy to enter into further dialog on these topics. Best regards, Adrian Farrel and Deborah Brungard CCAMP co-chairs Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Sun, 21 May 2006 10:37:43 +0000 Message-ID: <006501c67cc2$5668b480$0a23fea9@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Subject: Communication from OIF on GMPLS for Ethernet Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 11:35:40 +0100 Organization: Old Dog Consulting MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, We have received a further communication from the OIF on the use of GMPLS to support Ethernet access. Again, this communication requests a response, and the chairs will draft something with your contributions. The full liaison can be seen at www.olddog.co.uk/incoming.htm Thanks, Adrian To: Adrian Farrel and Deborah Brungard, IETF CCAMP WG Co-Chairs From: Jim Jones, OIF TC Chair Copy: Ross Callon and Bill Fenner, IETF Routing Area Directors Subject: Use of RSVP to support Ethernet Access Dear Adrian and Deborah, During our discussion of protocol requirements to support Ethernet services over optical networks, we identified some issues where application of the GMPLS specifications were not clear to us. We request CCAMP's views on the following issues: 1. Use of parameters to distinguish port-based vs. VLAN-tag-based forwarding of Ethernet frames We have identified two variations on support of Ethernet services at the network access point: a) in the first variation, received frames are forwarded into a specific SONET/SDH path based on the incoming port, without processing the header information in the Ethernet frame; and b) in the second variation, received frames are forwarded into specific SONET/SDH paths based on header information, esp. the VLAN tag. It is not fully clear to us how these are distinguished in GMPLS signaling, especially forwarding behavior (a) above. The closest match that was identified was to use the following approach: - use the Switching Type value of "FSC" to indicate forwarding based on port; and - use the Switching Type value of "L2SC" to indicate forwarding based on the L2 protocol header of received frames. However, we feel that neither FSC nor L2SC exactly expresses behavior (a) above. In particular, "FSC" can also be interpreted as meaning that the signal received on the fiber is forwarded exactly as received, in its entirety, independent of the signal type (SONET, Ethernet, or other). We request CCAMP comment on whether this approach is the correct interpretation of the specifications or if an alternative and/or supplemental mechanism should be considered. 2. Use of Label for these cases In addition to the question on the use of Switching Capability, it was not clear what value should be used as the Generalized Label for these cases. For case (a) above, our current assumption is that the Label reflects the affected port, however it was noted that this may duplicate information in the RSVP_HOP Interface Index sub-TLV. For case (b) above it seems logical that the Label reflect the affected VLAN tags. We are investigating label formats to represent a list or range of VLAN identifiers, as used in MEF.11 bundling. In the case where a large number of non-consecutive VLAN identifiers is used for the same connection, we would like to keep the label to a reasonable size. In the case of bi-directional connections, the UPSTREAM_LABEL is used to indicate the connection is bi-directional. The LABEL_SET is then used if there is a need for the labels to be identical in both directions. In that case, there is a redundancy of labels. That is problematic with large label formats. We would appreciate your advice regarding the possibility to reduce the number of labels required in the case of bi-directional connections where the label is the same in both directions. OIF requests CCAMP's comment on the use of Labels in these cases. Best regards, Jim Jones OIF Technical Committee Chair Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Sat, 20 May 2006 14:22:56 +0000 Message-ID: <0b7a01c67c18$6ffd2c00$36849ed9@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Subject: Fw: Liaison from the OIF Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 15:15:35 +0100 Organization: Old Dog Consulting MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, We have received a communication from the OIF about the use of GMPLS protocols to provide 1:n protection. This includes a lot of questions for clarification and, although my first response is to suggest more careful reading of the associated RFCs and I-Ds, we should, nevertheless put together a more detailed reply pointing to the relevant sections and explaining how the protocols work Deborah and I (ha! welcome to the world of work, Deborah ;-) will put together a response for your review, but we would welcome input from all interested parties. The text of the communication is included below. It can be found in its original form (PDF) together with an attachment (PPT) at www.olddog.co.uk/incoming.htm Thanks, Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lisa Daugherty" <ldaugherty@oiforum.com> To: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>; <dbrungard@att.com> Cc: <rcallon@juniper.net>; <fenner@research.att.com>; "'Jim Jones'" <jim.d.jones@alcatel.com>; "'Trey Malpass'" <trey.malpass@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 7:17 PM Subject: Liaison from the OIF > Dear Adrian and Deborah, > > On behalf of OIF Technical Committee Chair, Jim Jones, attached please > find > a liaison letter and related OIF presentation (oif2006.031.01). > > Kind regards, > Lisa > > Lisa Daugherty/ Association Coordinator / OIF > 39355 California Street, Suite 307/ Fremont, CA 94538 > Phone: 510.744.4016 (direct) / 510.608.5928 (main) > Fax: 510.608.5917 > Email: ldaugherty@oiforum.com > http://www.oiforum.com > > Managed by Association Management Solutions (AMS); > Forum Management, Meeting and Event Planning > http://www.amsl.com ====== To: Adrian Farrel and Deborah Brungard, IETF CCAMP WG Co-Chairs From: Jim Jones, OIF TC Chair Copy: Ross Callon and Bill Fenner, IETF Routing Area Directors Subject: Liaison to IETF CCAMP WG on 1:N Protection Dear Adrian and Deborah, Future updates to OIF UNI and E-NNI signaling may include a feature for 1:N connection protection. The attached document presents requirements for these features. Recently a review was completed of RFCs 4426, 4427 and 4428 and IETF drafts that may be able to implement this function (including draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling-03 and draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-segment-recovery-02). It appears that the abstract messages from RFC 4426 provide much of this functionality, however several questions resulted from this review. OIF would appreciate review and comments from IETF CCAMP on the following items. 1.) OIF would appreciate knowing if there are protocol features in other IETF documents relevant to 1:N protection . 2.) RFC 4426 section 2.5.2 says "it MAY be possible for the LSPs on the working link to be mapped to the protection link without re-signaling each individual LSP" and "it MAY be possible to change the component links without needing to re-signal each individual LSP". OIF would like to know what signaling messages and objects can be used to accomplish this. 3.) It is suggested that the Failure Indication Message (or equivalent) from RFC 4426 can be triggered not only from a failure but also a command from a management system. 4.) A goal of the 1:N protection is to use a bulk notification and recovery procedure, based on RFC 4427 section 4.15. However, that RFC states the corresponding recovery switching actions are performed at the LSP level. It would be useful to know if bulk processing could be applied to recovery of individual connection segments on the failed span, not entire LSPs. 5.) RFC 4426 refers to three abstract messages involved in the reversion sequence: - A Bridge and Switch Request message from the source node after it has bridged traffic back to both working and protection links. - A Bridge and Switch Response message from the destination node after it has bridged traffic back to both working and protection links and changed its selector to the working link. - A Bridge and Switch Completed message from the source node after it has changed its selector to the working link and stopped sending traffic on the protection link (so the destination can stop transmitting on protection). Since RFC 4426 covers these Bridge and Switch messages briefly, more details should be specified on the operation and behavior in this reversion process. Further, it would be helpful to understand why the actions are performed by source and destination nodes rather than master and slave nodes. It may be appropriate to reuse the master/slave roles in the reversion process just as is done in the switchover process. In addition, RFC 4426 does not include an abstract message similar to the Failure Indication Message to request the beginning of the reversion procedure. It may be beneficial to include a message from the slave device to initiate reversion, just as there is a Failure Indication Message to initiate switchover. (RFC 4426 states that the Failure Indication Message may not be needed when the transport plane technology itself provides such a notification. The same may apply when a failure is cleared; however, there should still be an optional message to trigger the reversion process.) The OIF would appreciate the review and feedback of the CCAMP working group on these items. Best regards, Jim Jones OIF Technical Committee Chair Attachments 1.) Update for 1:N Protection capability: Control Plane assisted 1:N link connection protection (oif2006.031.01) Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Fri, 19 May 2006 10:00:07 +0000 Message-ID: <098d01c67b2a$bb50dec0$36849ed9@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Subject: Fw: Internet-Drafts Submission Cutoff Dates for the 66th IETF Meeting in Montreal, Quebec, Canada Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 09:18:38 +0100 Organization: Old Dog Consulting MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit FYI ----- Original Message ----- From: <ietf-secretariat@ietf.org> To: <ietf-announce@ietf.org> Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 5:00 AM Subject: Internet-Drafts Submission Cutoff Dates for the 66th IETF Meeting in Montreal, Quebec, Canada > > There are two (2) Internet-Draft cutoff dates for the 66th > IETF Meeting in Montreal, Quebec, Canada: > > June 19th: Cutoff Date for Initial (i.e., version -00) > Internet-Draft Submissions > > All initial Internet-Drafts (version -00) must be submitted by Monday, > June 19th at 9:00 AM ET. As always, all initial submissions with a > filename beginning with "draft-ietf" must be approved by the > appropriate WG Chair before they can be processed or announced. The > Secretariat would appreciate receiving WG Chair approval by Monday, > June 12th at 9:00 AM ET. > > June 26th: Cutoff Date for Revised (i.e., version -01 and higher) > Internet-Draft Submissions > > All revised Internet-Drafts (version -01 and higher) must be submitted > by Monday, June 26th at 9:00 AM ET. > > Initial and revised Internet-Drafts received after their respective > cutoff dates will not be made available in the Internet-Drafts > directory or announced until on or after Monday, July 10th at 9:00 > AM ET, when Internet-Draft posting resumes. Please do not wait until > the last minute to submit. > > Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. If you have any > questions or concerns, then please send a message to > internet-drafts@ietf.org. > > The IETF Secretariat > > FYI: The Internet-Draft cutoff dates as well as other significant dates > for the 66th IETF Meeting can be found at > http://www.ietf.org/meetings/cutoff_dates_66.html. > > _______________________________________________ > IETF-Announce mailing list > IETF-Announce@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce > > > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 17 May 2006 18:53:54 +0000 Message-ID: <446B7056.3010000@pi.se> Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 20:49:58 +0200 From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.se> Organization: Acreo AB User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (Windows/20060308) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Greg Jones greg.jones"@itu.int CC: statements@ietf.org, sjtrowbridge@lucent.com, Ghani.Abbas@marconi.com, mark.jones@sprint.com, betts01@nortel.com, maeda@ansl.ntt.co.jp, fenner@research.att.com, sob@harvard.edu, mpls@lists.ietf.org, ccamp@ops.ietf.org, pwe3 <pwe3@ietf.org>, Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net> Subject: Response to your liaison on T-MPLS of May 4 and April 2 2006 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ITU-T Study Group 15 Greg Jones greg.jones@itu.int Cc: IETF statements@ietf.org Stephen Trowbridge sjtrowbridge@lucent.com Ghani Abbas Ghani.Abbas@marconi.com Mark Jones mark.jones@sprint.com Malcolm Betts betts01@nortel.com Yoichi Maeda maeda@ansl.ntt.co.jp Ross Callon rcallon@juniper.net Bill Fenner fenner@research.att.com Scott Bradner sob@harvard.edu George Swallow swallow@cisco.com MPLS mailing list mpls@lists.ietf.org CCAMP mailing list ccamp@ops.ietf.org From: IETF MPLS Working Group Response contact: Loa Andersson loa@pi.se Technical contact: Loa Andersson loa@pi.se Purpose: Information Subject: Response to your liaison on T-MPLS of May 4 and April 2 2006 Thanks for your liaisons of May 4 and April 2 and for the kind invitation to the interim meeting that 19-23 June in Ottawa. We have studied the consented documents from the April liaison and the further clarifications in the May liaisons. We have ensured that IETF technical experts will participate in the Ottawa meeting. This response represents the consensus of the MPLS Working Group at the IETF. Other working groups, such as the PWE3 Working Group may also send responses. We do not consider that the comments we sent in our preliminary response have been addressed satisfactorily. We also understand that at least one new parameter has been introduced late in the discussion - the design decision that T-MPLS will be initially scoped to 802.3 clients (Ethernet interfaces), with future consideration for MPLS LSR clients. There are three major issues that we need to understand: 1. The requirements We have not seen any documentation of the problem that T-MPLS solves. 2. The reserved labels As this is a compatibility issue, we are very concerned. We request that you document any requirements for reserved labels and bring those requirements to the MPLS Working Group in the IETF. There is a (G)MPLS change process that can be used for this "draft-andersson-rtg-gmpls-change-02.txt" 3. MPLS functionality equipment T-MPLS networks. Since we still incompatibilities between the MPLS and T-MPLS specifications we are concerned that existing MPLS equipment, even though T-MPLS is said to to be a true subset of MPLS, won't be possible to use in T-MPLS networks. The recently introduced design with Ethernet EVCs will help to get around some of the issues we pointed out. Equipment in the T-MPLS network will not have to negotiate labels with equipment in MPLS enabled IP networks. However, we are still concerned about what "future consideration for IP/MPLS clients" might entail. Loa Andersson and George Swallow IETF MPLS Working Group Co-Chairs -- Loa Andersson Principal Networking Architect Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14 Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64 Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson@acreo.se loa@pi.se Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 15 May 2006 22:56:22 +0000 Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 15:54:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Rahul Aggarwal <rahul@juniper.net> To: benjamin.niven-jenkins@bt.com cc: mpls@ietf.org, ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: RE: working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-05.txt Message-ID: <20060515154948.G93718@sapphire.juniper.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hi Ben, Thanks for the comments. Please see inline: On Mon, 15 May 2006 benjamin.niven-jenkins@bt.com wrote: > owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org <> wrote: > > Working Group, > > > > this initiates a two week working group last call on > > draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-05.txt > > > > please send comments to the MPLS working group mailling list and/or > > working co-chairs. > > Section 4.3, paragraph 1 states "The two most notable differences are > that a P2MP LSP comprises multiple S2L Sub-LSPs and that, as a result of > this, it may not be possible to represent full state in a single IP > packet and even more likely that it can't fit into a single IP packet." > > Which appears to repeat itself. > Will reword the following: "As with all other RSVP controlled LSPs, P2MP LSP state is managed using RSVP messages. While use of RSVP messages is the same, P2MP LSP state differs from P2P LSP state in a number of ways. The two most notable differences are that a P2MP LSP comprises multiple S2L Sub- LSPs and that, as a result of this, it may not be possible to represent full state in a single IP packet and even more likely that it can't fit into a single IP packet. It must also be possible to efficiently add and remove endpoints to and from P2MP TE LSPs. An additional issue is that the P2MP LSP must also handle the state "remerge" problem, see [RFC4461]." to "As with all other RSVP controlled LSPs, P2MP LSP state is managed using RSVP messages. While use of RSVP messages is the same, P2MP LSP state differs from P2P LSP state in a number of ways. A P2MP LSP comprises multiple S2L Sub-LSPs and as a result of this it may not be possible to represent full state in a single IP packet. It must also be possible to efficiently add and remove endpoints to and from P2MP TE LSPs. An additional issue is that the P2MP LSP must also handle the state "remerge" problem, see [RFC4461]." > Section 5.2.4, paragraph 2 states "The ingress LSP may request 'LSP > integrity' by setting bit (TBA) of the Attributes Flags TLV. The bit is > set if LSP integrity is required." > > Should the bit that needs setting be defined here (rather than TBA) or > is that down to IANA? > The editors will request a specific bit. > Section 18, paragraph 1 "This section is currently under discussion > between the authors and will be updated in the next revision." > > Is this paragraph appropriate? > No. Thanks for catching it. Will remove it. Thanks, rahul > Ben > > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 15 May 2006 19:12:16 +0000 From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org> Cc: Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, ccamp mailing list <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, ccamp chair <kireeti@juniper.net>, ccamp chair <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Subject: Protocol Action: 'Link Management Protocol (LMP) Management Information Base (MIB)' to Proposed Standard Message-Id: <E1FfiUA-0001rW-1Q@stiedprstage1.ietf.org> Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 15:12:06 -0400 The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Link Management Protocol (LMP) Management Information Base (MIB) ' <draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc4327bis-01.txt> as a Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Bill Fenner and Ross Callon. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc4327bis-01.txt Technical Summary This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes managed objects for modeling the Link Management Protocol (LMP). It updates RFC 4327 to correct incorrect numerical values for the values of the TruthValue TC. These numbers were all in text such as DESCRIPTIONs or examples; the MIB itself is unchanged from the one in RFC 4327. Working Group Summary The Working Group has consensus to publish this document as an RFC at Proposed Standard level. Protocol Quality This document was reviewed for the IESG by Bill Fenner. Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 15 May 2006 19:12:10 +0000 From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org> Cc: Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, ccamp mailing list <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, ccamp chair <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, ccamp chair <dbrungard@att.com> Subject: Document Action: 'Evaluation of existing Routing Protocols against ASON routing requirements' to Informational RFC Message-Id: <E1FfiSm-0001pX-UL@stiedprstage1.ietf.org> Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 15:10:40 -0400 The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Evaluation of existing Routing Protocols against ASON routing requirements ' <draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-eval-03.txt> as an Informational RFC This document is the product of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Ross Callon and Bill Fenner. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-eval-03.txt Technical Summary This is an informational document that could be thought of as serving a liaision function, since it discusses how IETF routing protocols (particularly OSPF and IS-IS) can support the ASON work that is being done in the ITU. Working Group Summary No dissent. Protocol Quality Ross Callon has reviewed this for the IESG. Also reviewed by Deborah Brungard at Ross's request. Document has a good set of authors across CCAMP, IGP WGs, ITU-T and OSPF. Also reviewed closely by ITU-T SG15 (with liaisons exchanged). Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 15 May 2006 15:43:45 +0000 Message-ID: <017a01c67836$3dea9a30$7d1810ac@movaz.com> From: "Igor Bryskin" <ibryskin@movaz.com> To: "Kireeti Kompella" <kireeti@juniper.net>, "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Cc: <ospf@ietf.org>, <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Subject: Re: [OSPF] draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-01.txt Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 11:42:58 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kireeti, Good to hear from you. Please, see in-line. Igor ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kireeti Kompella" <kireeti@juniper.net> To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Cc: <ospf@ietf.org>; <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 10:12 AM Subject: Re: [OSPF] draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-01.txt > Hi Adrian, > > On Sat, 13 May 2006, Adrian Farrel wrote: > > > There is a draft in CCAMP that I want to bounce off the OSPF working group. > ... > > My questions to you: > > 1. Is it a concern that P-routers are being used to store and forward > > opaque information only needed by a small subset of the routers > > in the network? > > Necessary evil (i.e., No; see below) > > (I would reconsider the use of the word "small" -- in most networks I > have seen, the number of PE routers vastly outnumber the number of P > routers.) IB>> I think it is even more true in the context of L1 networks which in most of the cases are bunch of interconnected rings of PEs with zero or very few Ps. > > > 2. Is there a scaling concern that there is no control on the number of > > mesh groups that may exist, nor the number of mesh groups to > > which any router can belong? > > I guess an implementation could go berserk and advertise 65536 bytes > worth of mesh groups, but no, this doesn't concern me too much. > > > Context: > > This question arises in the context of > > draft-bryskin-l1vpn-ospf-auto-discovery-01.txt that is being discussed in the > > L1VPN working group. This I-D proposes to use the IGPs (specifically OSPF) to > > distribute information about which VPNs can be accessed through the PEs (not > > general VPN membership or reachability information, but just a list of VPN > > IDs and the link I-Ds that are used to reach them). Loud voices have been > > raised in L1VPN about the scalability and appropriateness of such an idea, > > and since it seems to be very similar to automesh, I want to see whether you > > all think there is a problem with automesh. > > I have the same issues with using ISIS/OSPF for auto-mesh as I do for > autodiscovery in L1VPNs -- OSPF and ISIS are not ideal vehicles for > such information. However, there are two very important differences > in these two cases: > > 1) BGP is often not present on "interior" routers (consider the case > of "P" routers fully meshed with TE LSPs, and PEs running LDP; and > BGP running only on PEs -- "BGP-free core") > > 2) It is vital for VPNs that a good policy mechanism be available to > control the distribution of information -- otherwise, there could > be serious breaches of privacy. IB>> Note, that what we are suggesting to advertise in L1VPN opaque LSAs are locally configured CE-PE links and their association with VPNs. I am sure that I am missing something, so could you help me understand: a) what scenarios of "serious breaches of privacy" you have in mind? b) how the BGP approach can help in this regard? Thanks, Igor > > That said, I would like to see automesh information carried in BGP, > to be used in preference to ISIS/OSPF whenever possible. > > Kireeti. > ------- > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 15 May 2006 14:12:46 +0000 Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 07:12:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net> To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> cc: ospf@ietf.org, ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: [OSPF] draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-01.txt Message-ID: <20060515063712.H2426@kummer.juniper.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Hi Adrian, On Sat, 13 May 2006, Adrian Farrel wrote: > There is a draft in CCAMP that I want to bounce off the OSPF working group. ... > My questions to you: > 1. Is it a concern that P-routers are being used to store and forward > opaque information only needed by a small subset of the routers > in the network? Necessary evil (i.e., No; see below) (I would reconsider the use of the word "small" -- in most networks I have seen, the number of PE routers vastly outnumber the number of P routers.) > 2. Is there a scaling concern that there is no control on the number of > mesh groups that may exist, nor the number of mesh groups to > which any router can belong? I guess an implementation could go berserk and advertise 65536 bytes worth of mesh groups, but no, this doesn't concern me too much. > Context: > This question arises in the context of > draft-bryskin-l1vpn-ospf-auto-discovery-01.txt that is being discussed in the > L1VPN working group. This I-D proposes to use the IGPs (specifically OSPF) to > distribute information about which VPNs can be accessed through the PEs (not > general VPN membership or reachability information, but just a list of VPN > IDs and the link I-Ds that are used to reach them). Loud voices have been > raised in L1VPN about the scalability and appropriateness of such an idea, > and since it seems to be very similar to automesh, I want to see whether you > all think there is a problem with automesh. I have the same issues with using ISIS/OSPF for auto-mesh as I do for autodiscovery in L1VPNs -- OSPF and ISIS are not ideal vehicles for such information. However, there are two very important differences in these two cases: 1) BGP is often not present on "interior" routers (consider the case of "P" routers fully meshed with TE LSPs, and PEs running LDP; and BGP running only on PEs -- "BGP-free core") 2) It is vital for VPNs that a good policy mechanism be available to control the distribution of information -- otherwise, there could be serious breaches of privacy. That said, I would like to see automesh information carried in BGP, to be used in preference to ISIS/OSPF whenever possible. Kireeti. ------- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 15 May 2006 13:36:45 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-05.txt Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 14:36:21 +0100 Message-ID: <F5AAFD21F2034349BF638211B5F27B0F084440DD@i2km86-ukdy.domain1.systemhost.net> Thread-Topic: working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-05.txt Thread-Index: AcZ2e1powyNpiR5aTI23+4rohWlX8wBpnppw From: <benjamin.niven-jenkins@bt.com> To: <mpls@ietf.org> Cc: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org <> wrote: > Working Group, >=20 > this initiates a two week working group last call on > draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-05.txt >=20 > please send comments to the MPLS working group mailling list and/or > working co-chairs.=20 Section 4.3, paragraph 1 states "The two most notable differences are that a P2MP LSP comprises multiple S2L Sub-LSPs and that, as a result of this, it may not be possible to represent full state in a single IP packet and even more likely that it can't fit into a single IP packet." Which appears to repeat itself. Section 5.2.4, paragraph 2 states "The ingress LSP may request 'LSP integrity' by setting bit (TBA) of the Attributes Flags TLV. The bit is set if LSP integrity is required." Should the bit that needs setting be defined here (rather than TBA) or is that down to IANA? Section 18, paragraph 1 "This section is currently under discussion between the authors and will be updated in the next revision." Is this paragraph appropriate? Ben Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Sun, 14 May 2006 19:58:55 +0000 Message-ID: <024001c67790$73986140$0a23fea9@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Subject: New Liaison Statement from ITU-T SG15, "ASON control plane session security" Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 20:49:24 +0100 Organization: Old Dog Consulting MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, We received a copy of a liaison statement from Study Group 15 of the ITU-T to the Security Area Directors with regard the security aspects of the ASON control plane. CAMP is not requested to perform any action, although I am sure that the Security ADs would welcome any input that you have on the subject. You can see the liaison in the IETF repository at https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/liaison_detail.cgi?detail_id=220 All incoming CCAMP liaisons are tracked at http://www.olddog.co.uk/ccamp.htm Cheers, Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg Jones (ITU-T SG 15)" <tsbsg15@itu.int> To: "Russ Housley" <housley@vigilsec.com>; "Sam Hartman" <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>; "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>; "Deborah Brungard" <dbrungard@att.com>; <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Cc: "Scott Bradner" <sob@harvard.edu>; "Yoichi Maeda" <maeda@ansl.ntt.co.jp>; "Ross Callon" <rcallon@juniper.net>; "Bill Fenner" <fenner@research.att.com>; <sjtrowbridge@lucent.com>; <chair@ietf.org>; <tsbsg15@itu.int>; <greg.jones@itu.int>; <hklam@lucent.com> Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 3:14 PM Subject: New Liaison Statement, "ASON control plane session security" > > Title: ASON control plane session security > Submission Date: 2006-05-05 > URL of the IETF Web page: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/liaison_detail.cgi?detail_id=220 > Please reply by 2006-06-26 > > From: Greg Jones(ITU-T SG 15) <tsbsg15@itu.int> > To: IETF Security Area Directors, CC: IETF CCAMP WG(Russ Housley > <housley@vigilsec.com>, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>, Adrian Farrel > <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, Deborah Brungard <dbrungard@att.com>, > ccamp@ops.ietf.org) > Cc: Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu> > Yoichi Maeda <maeda@ansl.ntt.co.jp> > Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net> > Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com> > sjtrowbridge@lucent.com > chair@ietf.org > Reponse Contact: tsbsg15@itu.int > greg.jones@itu.int > Technical Contact: hklam@lucent.com > Purpose: For action > Body: > In the context of the ASON Control Plane work, Q14 is starting work > on the operations and procedures required during Control plane > initialisation, reconfiguration and recovery (G.7716). > > These procedures require that authentication and general security > issues are properly addressed, and we therefore ask your advice > with respect to state of the art techniques that are available to > us to progress our work. > > The action deadline that we are requesting will make your response > available in time for our next interim meeting in June. If you are > unable to respond in time for that meeting, we still look forward > to a response some time in the future. Our next meeting after June > will start on October 30th, 2006. > > An electronic copy of this liaison statement is available at: > ftp://ftp.itu.int/tsg15opticaltransport/COMMUNICATIONS/index.html > Attachment(s): > ASON control plane session security - this liaison in original > WinWord format > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file313.doc) Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Sat, 13 May 2006 18:48:40 +0000 Message-ID: <00e401c676bc$fa61f210$0a23fea9@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> To: <ospf@ietf.org>, <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Cc: "'Jean Philippe Vasseur'" <jvasseur@cisco.com>, <takeda.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>, "Hamid Ould-Brahim" <hbrahim@nortel.com> Subject: draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-01.txt Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 15:25:48 +0100 Organization: Old Dog Consulting MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, There is a draft in CCAMP that I want to bounce off the OSPF working group. draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-01.txt uses the new opaque LSA defined in draft-ietf-ospf-cap-08.txt in order to carry information about "mesh groups". Members of mesh groups would be connected together by tunnels to provide a sub-mesh across the network. There are many applicabilities of this feature, but it is wanted in CCAMP to allow the construction of a mesh of MPLS-TE tunnels between a set of MPLS label switching routers (LSRs) within the network. This set might be a sub-set of the PEs, or might be a sub-set of the P-routers used to build a hierarchical network. The management of the mesh membership information is not the responsibility of the IGP. Rather, this is opaque information that is delivered to an application. Thus, SPF is acting as a transport for routing-related information. Any router may be a member of more than one mesh group, and many routers might not be in any mesh group (consider the PE mesh case where all P-routers are not in the group). My questions to you: 1. Is it a concern that P-routers are being used to store and forward opaque information only needed by a small subset of the routers in the network? 2. Is there a scaling concern that there is no control on the number of mesh groups that may exist, nor the number of mesh groups to which any router can belong? Context: This question arises in the context of draft-bryskin-l1vpn-ospf-auto-discovery-01.txt that is being discussed in the L1VPN working group. This I-D proposes to use the IGPs (specifically OSPF) to distribute information about which VPNs can be accessed through the PEs (not general VPN membership or reachability information, but just a list of VPN IDs and the link I-Ds that are used to reach them). Loud voices have been raised in L1VPN about the scalability and appropriateness of such an idea, and since it seems to be very similar to automesh, I want to see whether you all think there is a problem with automesh. many thanks, Adrian Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Sat, 13 May 2006 10:52:28 +0000 Message-ID: <4465B972.4090305@pi.se> Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 12:48:18 +0200 From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.se> Organization: Acreo AB User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (Windows/20060308) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mpls@ietf.org CC: ccamp <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, George Swallow <swallow@cisco.com>, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, Deborah Brungard <dbrungard@att.com>, Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net>, Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com> Subject: working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-05.txt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Working Group, this initiates a two week working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-05.txt please send comments to the MPLS working group mailling list and/or working co-chairs. The last call ends eob May 28th. The ccamp mailing list copied as this is a work that has an overlap between the working groups. Loa and George -- Loa Andersson Principal Networking Architect Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14 Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64 Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson@acreo.se loa@pi.se Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Fri, 12 May 2006 14:15:36 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-farrel-ccamp-ero-survey-00.txt Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 16:14:17 +0200 Message-ID: <7DBAFEC6A76F3E42817DF1EBE64CB0260369C5BE@FTRDMEL2.rd.francetelecom.fr> Thread-Topic: I-D ACTION:draft-farrel-ccamp-ero-survey-00.txt Thread-Index: AcZ1o+LWLEe9u8LSS7KVnhmt1hD3TQAKSlWw From: "MEURIC Julien RD-CORE-LAN" <julien.meuric@francetelecom.com> To: "Diego Caviglia" <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com> Cc: "<ccamp" <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Hi Diego. It looks like you're requiring some requirements! As a matter of fact, I'm thinking about it, but it should not overlap with what's addressed in the addressing draft... Regards, Julien -----Original Message----- From: Diego Caviglia [mailto:Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com]=20 Hi Julien, as a Carrier representative do you think that from your prespective some ERO implementations are better than other? E.g. from a carrier prespective having the possibility to use explicit ERO with component link and label specification is nice_to_have, mandatory or useless? The above is just an example I'm not pushing a solution that include component link and label. Regards Diego "MEURIC Julien RD-CORE-LAN" <julien.meuric@francetelecom.com>@ops.ietf.org on 12/05/2006 10.49.21 Sent by: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org To: <adrian@olddog.co.uk> cc: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-farrel-ccamp-ero-survey-00.txt Hi Adrian. Let me quote: " individual who, although (or perhaps because) he is a working group chair, cannot necessarily be trusted. Thus, the IETF process is open to an attack by this individual." I'm inclined to ask the following question: should the IETF stop allowing such attack, or should we modify the chair implementation so as to inhibit such behaviour? ;-) For the chair's sake, I'd rather change the receiving side to handle as many behaviours as possible, but I feel reducing sender's options will ease interoperability. As a result, I agree with your proposed actions, especially about making implementations converge on really required options. Cheers, Julien -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Hi, Here are the results of the anonymous survey of ERO usage that was triggered by the Dallas discussion of the GMPLS Addressing I-D. I have drawn some preliminary conclusions and included my advice in section 5. Please have a look at the whole and make your comments to the list. Thanks, Adrian PS If there is a bunch of other folk who suddenly feel the need to respond, I can always produce a revised I-D. ----- Original Message ----- From: <Internet-Drafts@ietf.org> >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >directories. > > > Title : Informal Survey into Explicit Route Object Implementations in > Generalized Multiprotocol Labels Switching Signaling Implementations > Author(s) : A. Farrel > Filename : draft-farrel-ccamp-ero-survey-00.txt > Pages : 12 > Date : 2006-5-11 > > During discussions of a document to provide guidance on the use of > addressing fields within the Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic > Engineering (RSVP-TE) signaling protocol used in Generalized > Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS), it was determined that there > was considerable variation in the implementation of options for the > Explicit Route Object (ERO). > > Since there was a proposal to deprecate some of the options, it was > felt necessary to conduct a survey of the existing and planned > implementations. > > This document summarizes the survey questions and captures the > results. Some conclusions are also presented. > > This survey was informal and conducted via email. Responses were > collected and anonymized by the CCAMP working group chair. > > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-farrel-ccamp-ero-survey-00.txt > > To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to > i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the > message. > You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce > to change your subscription settings. > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the > username > "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, > type "cd internet-drafts" and then > "get draft-farrel-ccamp-ero-survey-00.txt". > > A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in > http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > > Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > > Send a message to: > mailserv@ietf.org. > In the body type: > "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-farrel-ccamp-ero-survey-00.txt". > > NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" > command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split > up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on > how to manipulate these messages. > > > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > Internet-Draft. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- > _______________________________________________ > I-D-Announce mailing list > I-D-Announce@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Fri, 12 May 2006 09:10:38 +0000 Sensitivity: Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-farrel-ccamp-ero-survey-00.txt To: julien.meuric@francetelecom.com Cc: "<adrian" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "<ccamp" <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Message-ID: <OFFE1F2CCA.AB9D529B-ONC125716C.0031F36F-C125716C.00326BEC@uk.marconicomms.com> From: "Diego Caviglia" <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com> Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 11:10:06 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi Julien, as a Carrier representative do you think that from your prespective some ERO implementations are better than other? E.g. from a carrier prespective having the possibility to use explicit ERO with component link and label specification is nice_to_have, mandatory or useless? The above is just an example I'm not pushing a solution that include component link and label. Regards Diego "MEURIC Julien RD-CORE-LAN" <julien.meuric@francetelecom.com>@ops.ietf.org on 12/05/2006 10.49.21 Sent by: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org To: <adrian@olddog.co.uk> cc: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-farrel-ccamp-ero-survey-00.txt Hi Adrian. Let me quote: " individual who, although (or perhaps because) he is a working group chair, cannot necessarily be trusted. Thus, the IETF process is open to an attack by this individual." I'm inclined to ask the following question: should the IETF stop allowing such attack, or should we modify the chair implementation so as to inhibit such behaviour? ;-) For the chair's sake, I'd rather change the receiving side to handle as many behaviours as possible, but I feel reducing sender's options will ease interoperability. As a result, I agree with your proposed actions, especially about making implementations converge on really required options. Cheers, Julien -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Hi, Here are the results of the anonymous survey of ERO usage that was triggered by the Dallas discussion of the GMPLS Addressing I-D. I have drawn some preliminary conclusions and included my advice in section 5. Please have a look at the whole and make your comments to the list. Thanks, Adrian PS If there is a bunch of other folk who suddenly feel the need to respond, I can always produce a revised I-D. ----- Original Message ----- From: <Internet-Drafts@ietf.org> >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >directories. > > > Title : Informal Survey into Explicit Route Object Implementations in > Generalized Multiprotocol Labels Switching Signaling Implementations > Author(s) : A. Farrel > Filename : draft-farrel-ccamp-ero-survey-00.txt > Pages : 12 > Date : 2006-5-11 > > During discussions of a document to provide guidance on the use of > addressing fields within the Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic > Engineering (RSVP-TE) signaling protocol used in Generalized > Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS), it was determined that there > was considerable variation in the implementation of options for the > Explicit Route Object (ERO). > > Since there was a proposal to deprecate some of the options, it was > felt necessary to conduct a survey of the existing and planned > implementations. > > This document summarizes the survey questions and captures the > results. Some conclusions are also presented. > > This survey was informal and conducted via email. Responses were > collected and anonymized by the CCAMP working group chair. > > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-farrel-ccamp-ero-survey-00.txt > > To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to > i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the > message. > You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce > to change your subscription settings. > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the > username > "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, > type "cd internet-drafts" and then > "get draft-farrel-ccamp-ero-survey-00.txt". > > A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in > http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > > Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > > Send a message to: > mailserv@ietf.org. > In the body type: > "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-farrel-ccamp-ero-survey-00.txt". > > NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" > command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split > up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on > how to manipulate these messages. > > > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > Internet-Draft. > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > I-D-Announce mailing list > I-D-Announce@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Fri, 12 May 2006 08:50:58 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-farrel-ccamp-ero-survey-00.txt Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 10:49:21 +0200 Message-ID: <7DBAFEC6A76F3E42817DF1EBE64CB0260369C36B@FTRDMEL2.rd.francetelecom.fr> Thread-Topic: I-D ACTION:draft-farrel-ccamp-ero-survey-00.txt Thread-Index: AcZ1U2/5vFedGxF5Sce2tnSfgFuj7QASNY+Q From: "MEURIC Julien RD-CORE-LAN" <julien.meuric@francetelecom.com> To: <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Cc: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Hi Adrian. Let me quote: " individual who, although (or perhaps because) he is a working group chair, cannot necessarily be trusted. Thus, the IETF process is open to an attack by this individual." I'm inclined to ask the following question: should the IETF stop = allowing such attack, or should we modify the chair implementation so as = to inhibit such behaviour? ;-) For the chair's sake, I'd rather change the receiving side to handle as = many behaviours as possible, but I feel reducing sender's options will = ease interoperability. As a result, I agree with your proposed actions, = especially about making implementations converge on really required = options. Cheers, Julien -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On = Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Hi, Here are the results of the anonymous survey of ERO usage that was = triggered=20 by the Dallas discussion of the GMPLS Addressing I-D. I have drawn some preliminary conclusions and included my advice in = section=20 5. Please have a look at the whole and make your comments to the list. Thanks, Adrian PS If there is a bunch of other folk who suddenly feel the need to = respond,=20 I can always produce a revised I-D. ----- Original Message -----=20 From: <Internet-Drafts@ietf.org> >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts=20 >directories. > > > Title : Informal Survey into Explicit Route Object Implementations in=20 > Generalized Multiprotocol Labels Switching Signaling Implementations > Author(s) : A. Farrel > Filename : draft-farrel-ccamp-ero-survey-00.txt > Pages : 12 > Date : 2006-5-11 > > During discussions of a document to provide guidance on the use of > addressing fields within the Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic > Engineering (RSVP-TE) signaling protocol used in Generalized > Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS), it was determined that there > was considerable variation in the implementation of options for the > Explicit Route Object (ERO). > > Since there was a proposal to deprecate some of the options, it was > felt necessary to conduct a survey of the existing and planned > implementations. > > This document summarizes the survey questions and captures the > results. Some conclusions are also presented. > > This survey was informal and conducted via email. Responses were > collected and anonymized by the CCAMP working group chair. > > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > = http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-farrel-ccamp-ero-survey-00.txt > > To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to > i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of = the=20 > message. > You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce > to change your subscription settings. > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the=20 > username > "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, > type "cd internet-drafts" and then > "get draft-farrel-ccamp-ero-survey-00.txt". > > A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in > http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > > Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > > Send a message to: > mailserv@ietf.org. > In the body type: > "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-farrel-ccamp-ero-survey-00.txt". > > NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" > command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split > up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on > how to manipulate these messages. > > > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > Internet-Draft. > -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------- > _______________________________________________ > I-D-Announce mailing list > I-D-Announce@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce >=20 Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 11 May 2006 23:23:42 +0000 Message-ID: <022901c67551$a48f8df0$0a23fea9@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Subject: Fw: I-D ACTION:draft-farrel-ccamp-ero-survey-00.txt Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 00:20:29 +0100 Organization: Old Dog Consulting MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Here are the results of the anonymous survey of ERO usage that was triggered by the Dallas discussion of the GMPLS Addressing I-D. I have drawn some preliminary conclusions and included my advice in section 5. Please have a look at the whole and make your comments to the list. Thanks, Adrian PS If there is a bunch of other folk who suddenly feel the need to respond, I can always produce a revised I-D. ----- Original Message ----- From: <Internet-Drafts@ietf.org> To: <i-d-announce@ietf.org> Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 8:50 PM Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-farrel-ccamp-ero-survey-00.txt >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >directories. > > > Title : Informal Survey into Explicit Route Object Implementations in > Generalized Multiprotocol Labels Switching Signaling Implementations > Author(s) : A. Farrel > Filename : draft-farrel-ccamp-ero-survey-00.txt > Pages : 12 > Date : 2006-5-11 > > During discussions of a document to provide guidance on the use of > addressing fields within the Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic > Engineering (RSVP-TE) signaling protocol used in Generalized > Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS), it was determined that there > was considerable variation in the implementation of options for the > Explicit Route Object (ERO). > > Since there was a proposal to deprecate some of the options, it was > felt necessary to conduct a survey of the existing and planned > implementations. > > This document summarizes the survey questions and captures the > results. Some conclusions are also presented. > > This survey was informal and conducted via email. Responses were > collected and anonymized by the CCAMP working group chair. > > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-farrel-ccamp-ero-survey-00.txt > > To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to > i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the > message. > You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce > to change your subscription settings. > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the > username > "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, > type "cd internet-drafts" and then > "get draft-farrel-ccamp-ero-survey-00.txt". > > A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in > http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > > Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > > Send a message to: > mailserv@ietf.org. > In the body type: > "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-farrel-ccamp-ero-survey-00.txt". > > NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" > command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split > up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on > how to manipulate these messages. > > > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > Internet-Draft. > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > I-D-Announce mailing list > I-D-Announce@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 11 May 2006 20:35:42 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v749.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <161EE66F-9713-49CF-94F5-316EC7561352@cisco.com> Cc: Tom Petch <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com>, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, ccamp@ops.ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <tnadeau@cisco.com> Subject: Re: Freeform labels Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 16:34:44 -0400 To: jcucchiara@mindspring.com On May 11, 2006, at 10:29 AM, jcucchiara@mindspring.com wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- >> From: Tom Petch <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> >> Sent: May 9, 2006 3:43 AM >> To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, ccamp@ops.ietf.org, >> tnadeau@cisco.com >> Cc: joan cucchiara <jcucchiara@mindspring.com> >> Subject: Freeform labels > > Hi Tom, > >> >> I am confused about freeform labels. I am not familiar with them >> from other >> contexts and so am not clear how significant they are but ... >> >> (draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-)tc-mib under GmplsFreeformLabelTC >> references RFC3471 >> which would be a good place to read about them except I can see no >> mention of >> them there. They appear in tc-mib, lsr-mib and te-mib - they are >> used as worked >> examples which is what attracted my attention - but I cannot find >> them anywhere >> else in the (G)MPLS library. I think that more description is >> needed somewhere. > > The GmplsFreeformLabelTC is also used in the GMPLS-LABEL-STD-MIB > (gmplsLabelFreeform in the > gmplsLabelTable). I believe given the purpose of this particular > MIB table and also within the context of the other objects in this > table, that the intent of GmplsFreeformLabelTC is fairly well > described. > >> >> Why does GmplsFreeformLabelTC give size limits of 0 and 64? Can >> they really be >> 0-length? I have no problem with an SMI object having zero length >> as long as >> the entity being modeled by it can have zero length but is that >> meaningful here? >> And why 64? ok, a lot more than 32-bit but 64 sounds arbitrary (in >> which case, I >> think that worth saying); or does 64 octet relate to some other >> well known >> address formats (IPv6 anyone?). >> > > The length of 64 was thought by the authors to be more than enough > for the purpose > of this label. I also questioned this during the MIB Dr. review, > but currently label > lengths in the MPLS/GMPLS wgs are 4 octets, so 64 seems reasonable. > > 0 length is used if this object does not contain a label, so it is > not the actual label > that is 0 length, but when the object has not label. > > >> When GmplsFreeformLabelTC says 'not defined in any RFC', I think >> it sums it up >> too well:-( >> > > Yes, this is a MIB convention only. > >> So the use of gmplsFreeformLabel(3) everywhere except in the >> formal definition >> where it appears (I assume) as gmplsFreeformGeneralizedLabel(3) >> seems about >> right as does the descripttion >> > > Good catch. I probably should have caught this during the MIB Dr. > reviews. > Tom N. could you change this during the IESG/RFC reviews. Will do. > > > -Joan > > >> "The label is any form of label >> encoded as an OCTET STRING using >> the Textual Convention GmplsFreeformLabel" >> >> Well no, the Textual Convention is GmplsFreeformLabelTC and I >> would rather say >> that the label is encoded using the Textual Convention >> GmplsFreeformLabelTC >> (even though that is a redefinition of an OCTET STRING). >> >> I think more should be said somewhere, ideally in RFC3471, but, more >> realistically, in tc-mib. >> >> Tom Petch >> >> >> > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 11 May 2006 15:54:16 +0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=mindspring.com; b=AY8GVa7jfolOi/T5tURKHI0NBc8HuXhqwk/D5/XeXpIaQ+5LckgP+mvQDtglSjU7; h=Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:To:Subject:Cc:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Mailer:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Message-ID: <1522732.1147357778348.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 10:29:38 -0400 (GMT-04:00) From: jcucchiara@mindspring.com Reply-To: jcucchiara@mindspring.com To: Tom Petch <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com>, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, ccamp@ops.ietf.org, tnadeau@cisco.com Subject: Re: Freeform labels Cc: joan cucchiara <jcucchiara@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----Original Message----- >From: Tom Petch <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> >Sent: May 9, 2006 3:43 AM >To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, ccamp@ops.ietf.org, tnadeau@cisco.com >Cc: joan cucchiara <jcucchiara@mindspring.com> >Subject: Freeform labels Hi Tom, > >I am confused about freeform labels. I am not familiar with them from other >contexts and so am not clear how significant they are but ... > >(draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-)tc-mib under GmplsFreeformLabelTC references RFC3471 >which would be a good place to read about them except I can see no mention of >them there. They appear in tc-mib, lsr-mib and te-mib - they are used as worked >examples which is what attracted my attention - but I cannot find them anywhere >else in the (G)MPLS library. I think that more description is needed somewhere. The GmplsFreeformLabelTC is also used in the GMPLS-LABEL-STD-MIB (gmplsLabelFreeform in the gmplsLabelTable). I believe given the purpose of this particular MIB table and also within the context of the other objects in this table, that the intent of GmplsFreeformLabelTC is fairly well described. > >Why does GmplsFreeformLabelTC give size limits of 0 and 64? Can they really be >0-length? I have no problem with an SMI object having zero length as long as >the entity being modeled by it can have zero length but is that meaningful here? >And why 64? ok, a lot more than 32-bit but 64 sounds arbitrary (in which case, I >think that worth saying); or does 64 octet relate to some other well known >address formats (IPv6 anyone?). > The length of 64 was thought by the authors to be more than enough for the purpose of this label. I also questioned this during the MIB Dr. review, but currently label lengths in the MPLS/GMPLS wgs are 4 octets, so 64 seems reasonable. 0 length is used if this object does not contain a label, so it is not the actual label that is 0 length, but when the object has not label. >When GmplsFreeformLabelTC says 'not defined in any RFC', I think it sums it up >too well:-( > Yes, this is a MIB convention only. >So the use of gmplsFreeformLabel(3) everywhere except in the formal definition >where it appears (I assume) as gmplsFreeformGeneralizedLabel(3) seems about >right as does the descripttion > Good catch. I probably should have caught this during the MIB Dr. reviews. Tom N. could you change this during the IESG/RFC reviews. -Joan >"The label is any form of label >encoded as an OCTET STRING using >the Textual Convention GmplsFreeformLabel" > >Well no, the Textual Convention is GmplsFreeformLabelTC and I would rather say >that the label is encoded using the Textual Convention GmplsFreeformLabelTC >(even though that is a redefinition of an OCTET STRING). > >I think more should be said somewhere, ideally in RFC3471, but, more >realistically, in tc-mib. > >Tom Petch > > > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 10 May 2006 20:55:25 +0000 To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Fw: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-eval-03.txt MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <OFF971710B.08938070-ONC125716A.00727C60-C125716A.0072BF44@netfr.alcatel.fr> From: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 22:53:20 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" folks this revision includes - editorial review - complete security section much thanks to the reviewers (in part. deborah, ross, GEN-ART reviewers) - d. ----- Forwarded by Dimitri PAPADIMITRIOU/BE/ALCATEL on 10/05/2006 22:50 ----- Internet-Drafts@ietf.org 09/05/2006 21:50 Please respond to internet-drafts To: i-d-announce@ietf.org cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-eval-03.txt A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group of the IETF. Title : Evaluation of existing Routing Protocols against ASON routing requirements Author(s) : D. Papadimitriou, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-eval-03.txt Pages : 0 Date : 2006-5-9 The Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) suite of protocols has been defined to control different switching technologies as well as different applications. These include support for requesting TDM connections including SONET/SDH and Optical Transport Networks (OTNs). This document provides an evaluation of the IETF Routing Protocols against the routing requirements for an Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON) as defined by ITU-T. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-eval-03.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-eval-03.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-eval-03.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. ftp://anonymous@ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-eval-03.txt _______________________________________________ I-D-Announce mailing list I-D-Announce@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 09 May 2006 19:51:35 +0000 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-eval-03.txt Message-Id: <E1FdYDZ-0005RT-J4@stiedprstage1.ietf.org> Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 15:50:01 -0400 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group of the IETF. Title : Evaluation of existing Routing Protocols against ASON routing requirements Author(s) : D. Papadimitriou, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-eval-03.txt Pages : 0 Date : 2006-5-9 The Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) suite of protocols has been defined to control different switching technologies as well as different applications. These include support for requesting TDM connections including SONET/SDH and Optical Transport Networks (OTNs). This document provides an evaluation of the IETF Routing Protocols against the routing requirements for an Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON) as defined by ITU-T. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-eval-03.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-eval-03.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-eval-03.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2006-5-9130734.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-eval-03.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-eval-03.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2006-5-9130734.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 09 May 2006 13:08:16 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v749.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <977E1F7C-FF24-4612-8CB4-B12B1440B044@cisco.com> Cc: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, ccamp@ops.ietf.org, Cucchiara Joan <jcucchiara@mindspring.com>, Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <tnadeau@cisco.com> Subject: Re: Freeform labels Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 09:06:47 -0400 To: Tom Petch <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> Tom, If you have specific suggestions for changes, please propose them. --Tom > I am confused about freeform labels. I am not familiar with them > from other > contexts and so am not clear how significant they are but ... > > (draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-)tc-mib under GmplsFreeformLabelTC > references RFC3471 > which would be a good place to read about them except I can see no > mention of > them there. They appear in tc-mib, lsr-mib and te-mib - they are > used as worked > examples which is what attracted my attention - but I cannot find > them anywhere > else in the (G)MPLS library. I think that more description is > needed somewhere. > > Why does GmplsFreeformLabelTC give size limits of 0 and 64? Can > they really be > 0-length? I have no problem with an SMI object having zero length > as long as > the entity being modeled by it can have zero length but is that > meaningful here? > And why 64? ok, a lot more than 32-bit but 64 sounds arbitrary (in > which case, I > think that worth saying); or does 64 octet relate to some other > well known > address formats (IPv6 anyone?). > > When GmplsFreeformLabelTC says 'not defined in any RFC', I think > it sums it up > too well:-( > > So the use of gmplsFreeformLabel(3) everywhere except in the formal > definition > where it appears (I assume) as gmplsFreeformGeneralizedLabel(3) > seems about > right as does the descripttion > > "The label is any form of label > encoded as an OCTET STRING using > the Textual Convention GmplsFreeformLabel" > > Well no, the Textual Convention is GmplsFreeformLabelTC and I would > rather say > that the label is encoded using the Textual Convention > GmplsFreeformLabelTC > (even though that is a redefinition of an OCTET STRING). > > I think more should be said somewhere, ideally in RFC3471, but, more > realistically, in tc-mib. > > Tom Petch Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 09 May 2006 08:49:34 +0000 Message-ID: <000d01c6733c$781657c0$0601a8c0@pc6> Reply-To: "Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> From: "Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, <tnadeau@cisco.com> Cc: "joan cucchiara" <jcucchiara@mindspring.com> Subject: Freeform labels Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 09:43:37 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I am confused about freeform labels. I am not familiar with them from other contexts and so am not clear how significant they are but ... (draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-)tc-mib under GmplsFreeformLabelTC references RFC3471 which would be a good place to read about them except I can see no mention of them there. They appear in tc-mib, lsr-mib and te-mib - they are used as worked examples which is what attracted my attention - but I cannot find them anywhere else in the (G)MPLS library. I think that more description is needed somewhere. Why does GmplsFreeformLabelTC give size limits of 0 and 64? Can they really be 0-length? I have no problem with an SMI object having zero length as long as the entity being modeled by it can have zero length but is that meaningful here? And why 64? ok, a lot more than 32-bit but 64 sounds arbitrary (in which case, I think that worth saying); or does 64 octet relate to some other well known address formats (IPv6 anyone?). When GmplsFreeformLabelTC says 'not defined in any RFC', I think it sums it up too well:-( So the use of gmplsFreeformLabel(3) everywhere except in the formal definition where it appears (I assume) as gmplsFreeformGeneralizedLabel(3) seems about right as does the descripttion "The label is any form of label encoded as an OCTET STRING using the Textual Convention GmplsFreeformLabel" Well no, the Textual Convention is GmplsFreeformLabelTC and I would rather say that the label is encoded using the Textual Convention GmplsFreeformLabelTC (even though that is a redefinition of an OCTET STRING). I think more should be said somewhere, ideally in RFC3471, but, more realistically, in tc-mib. Tom Petch Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 08 May 2006 23:22:00 +0000 Message-ID: <003601c672f5$f7fe7400$0a23fea9@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> To: <mpls@lists.ietf.org> Cc: "Loa Andersson" <loa@pi.se>, "George Swallow" <swallow@cisco.com>, <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Subject: draft-farrel-mpls-iana-rsvp-session-flags-00.txt Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 00:18:23 +0100 Organization: Old Dog Consulting MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, During IESG review of draft-ietf-mpls-rsvpte-attributes we removed the "suggestion" that IANA should track the flags bits in the Session-Attributes object, because there was no explicit requirement in that draft to create a new registry for those bits. During IESG review of draft-ietf-ccamp-loose-path-reopt we noticed that yet another bit from that flags field is being assigned, and that draft asked IANA to assign the bit from the registry (that has not been created). So... I have written draft-farrel-mpls-iana-rsvp-session-flags-00.txt to request IANA to create a registry. I would welcome review from the MPLS and CCAMP working groups. If the MPLS WG chairs want to adopt this I-D as a working group document and move it to immediate WG last call, that would be great. Otherwise I will take it to the ADs as a personal draft and ask for it to be made into an RFC. Thanks, Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: <Internet-Drafts@ietf.org> To: <i-d-announce@ietf.org> Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 11:50 PM Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-farrel-mpls-iana-rsvp-session-flags-00.txt >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >directories. > > > Title : Codepoint Registry for The Flags Field in the Resource Reservation > Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Session Attribute Object > Author(s) : A. Farrel > Filename : draft-farrel-mpls-iana-rsvp-session-flags-00.txt > Pages : 5 > Date : 2006-5-8 > > This document provides instructions to IANA for the creation of a new > codepoint registry for the flags field in the Session Attribute > object of the Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineeging > (RSVP-TE) signaling messages used in Multiprotocol Label Switching > (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) signaling. > > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-farrel-mpls-iana-rsvp-session-flags-00.txt > > To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to > i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the > message. > You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce > to change your subscription settings. > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the > username > "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, > type "cd internet-drafts" and then > "get draft-farrel-mpls-iana-rsvp-session-flags-00.txt". > > A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in > http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > > Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > > Send a message to: > mailserv@ietf.org. > In the body type: > "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-farrel-mpls-iana-rsvp-session-flags-00.txt". > > NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" > command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split > up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on > how to manipulate these messages. > > > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > Internet-Draft. > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > I-D-Announce mailing list > I-D-Announce@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 08 May 2006 19:51:01 +0000 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt Message-Id: <E1FdBk2-0008FS-8d@stiedprstage1.ietf.org> Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 15:50:02 -0400 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group of the IETF. Title : Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Label Switching Router (LSR) Management Information Base Author(s) : T. Nadeau, A. Farrel Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt Pages : 42 Date : 2006-5-8 This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes managed objects to configure and/or monitor a Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Label Switching Router (LSR). A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2006-5-8133949.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2006-5-8133949.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 08 May 2006 19:14:10 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: How to announce ethernet capabilities in GMPLS Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 21:13:14 +0200 Message-ID: <81FEC275650AE14EBD5245E624762B97041F6F48@ds07.tnoase.telecom.tno.nl> Thread-Topic: How to announce ethernet capabilities in GMPLS Thread-Index: AcZyu9sA9ndTJVEnQkaMWOvJdoCuNgAFp6og From: <E.T.Metz@telecom.tno.nl> To: <fdijkstr@science.uva.nl> Cc: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> =20 >=20 > I'm currently mostly interested in the former case. > Am I correct that this would typically involve two LSPs at the link > layer (L2 switch to PXC and PXC to anoother L2 switch) and a third LSP > at the ethernet layer. >=20 >=20 If I understand your setup correctly (switch <--> pxc <--> switch) this would be one LSP between the switches and through (switched by) the PXC. This LSP instantiates a 'link' between two ports on the Ethernet switches. /Eduard Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 08 May 2006 16:45:53 +0000 To: Freek Dijkstra <fdijkstr@science.uva.nl> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org, E.T.Metz@telecom.tno.nl, owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: How to announce ethernet capabilities in GMPLS MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <OF628902E1.717FFFBD-ONC1257168.005BF169-C1257168.005C0CBA@netfr.alcatel.fr> From: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 18:45:17 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" hi - > Is the G-PID decided during the signaling, or announced by the routing > and taken into account during the path computation? the former. thanks, - dimitri. Freek Dijkstra <fdijkstr@science.uva.nl> Sent by: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org 08/05/2006 18:24 To: E.T.Metz@telecom.tno.nl cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: How to announce ethernet capabilities in GMPLS Hi Eduard, Thanks for your response! I vary much appreciate that! > I think there are two separate issues here: > - The definition of an LSP in the LSC switching region between 2 > Ethernet switches (through the PXC), and > - The definition of LSP in the L2SC switching regions through a number > of Ethernet switches. > [...] > Which is your concern? (Note, to me, both appear to be areas of > development) I'm currently mostly interested in the former case. Am I correct that this would typically involve two LSPs at the link layer (L2 switch to PXC and PXC to anoother L2 switch) and a third LSP at the ethernet layer. > For the former, the WAN-PHY / LAN-PHY question seems relevant. I'd say > this is (should be) somehow part of the G-PID for the LSP between the > switches. > > An overview of GMPLS parameters can be found at: > http://www.iana.org/numbers.html#G Thanks! I did not realize that the Internet Draft on G709 did define a few new G-PID parameters. However, I fear I'm now slightly confused how the G-PID are announced. They don't seem to be included in the OSPF routing messages (neither RFC 4203 not 4204 seem to mention them). Is the G-PID decided during the signaling, or announced by the routing and taken into account during the path computation? Regards, Freek Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 08 May 2006 16:24:36 +0000 Message-ID: <445F70A9.10403@science.uva.nl> Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 18:24:09 +0200 From: Freek Dijkstra <fdijkstr@science.uva.nl> User-Agent: Mail/News 1.5.0.2 (Macintosh/20060401) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: E.T.Metz@telecom.tno.nl Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: How to announce ethernet capabilities in GMPLS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Eduard, Thanks for your response! I vary much appreciate that! > I think there are two separate issues here: > - The definition of an LSP in the LSC switching region between 2 > Ethernet switches (through the PXC), and > - The definition of LSP in the L2SC switching regions through a number > of Ethernet switches. > [...] > Which is your concern? (Note, to me, both appear to be areas of > development) I'm currently mostly interested in the former case. Am I correct that this would typically involve two LSPs at the link layer (L2 switch to PXC and PXC to anoother L2 switch) and a third LSP at the ethernet layer. > For the former, the WAN-PHY / LAN-PHY question seems relevant. I'd say > this is (should be) somehow part of the G-PID for the LSP between the > switches. > > An overview of GMPLS parameters can be found at: > http://www.iana.org/numbers.html#G Thanks! I did not realize that the Internet Draft on G709 did define a few new G-PID parameters. However, I fear I'm now slightly confused how the G-PID are announced. They don't seem to be included in the OSPF routing messages (neither RFC 4203 not 4204 seem to mention them). Is the G-PID decided during the signaling, or announced by the routing and taken into account during the path computation? Regards, Freek Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 08 May 2006 15:46:36 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: How to announce ethernet capabilities in GMPLS Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 17:45:30 +0200 Message-ID: <81FEC275650AE14EBD5245E624762B97041F6F47@ds07.tnoase.telecom.tno.nl> Thread-Topic: How to announce ethernet capabilities in GMPLS Thread-Index: AcZuyOYpxfOgt5U4SsaHGEemr51mMwD6O0kA From: <E.T.Metz@telecom.tno.nl> To: <fdijkstr@science.uva.nl> Cc: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Hi Freek,=20 I think there are two separate issues here: - The definition of an LSP in the LSC switching region between 2 Ethernet switches (through the PXC), and - The definition of LSP in the L2SC switching regions through a number of Ethernet switches. For the former, the WAN-PHY / LAN-PHY question seems relevant. I'd say this is (should be) somehow part of the G-PID for the LSP between the switches. For the latter, the VLAN/no-VLAN question seems relevant (this belongs to the GELS work I think). Although you could argue that also for the inter-switch LSP this information might be relevant; you may not want to cross-connect a trunk port with a non-trunk port. If the encoding do not match, you may not be able to setup 'Ethernet' LSPs. Which is your concern? (Note, to me, both appear to be areas of development) An overview of GMPLS parameters can be found at: http://www.iana.org/numbers.html#G cheers, Eduard > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org=20 > [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Freek Dijkstra > Sent: woensdag 3 mei 2006 17:46 > To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org > Subject: How to announce ethernet capabilities in GMPLS >=20 > Hi, >=20 > I have a question about GMPLS. >=20 > My interest is mostly scientific in nature; and after reading a few > RFC's and internet drafts, I still found no satisfying answer. I may > have overlooked it. >=20 > How would you specify the encoding type for a link with IEEE=20 > 802.1q VLAN > tags versus a link which can not do that? > And related, how to distinguish between WAN PHY and LAN PHY encoding? >=20 > Imagine a small network with 3 or 4 layer 2 switches, with all > interfaces connected to one central photonic cross connect (MEMS > device). In such a case, it is useful to know the above details. >=20 >=20 > If I'm correct, a Layer 2 switch announces the capabilities of each > interface using a link state advertisement (LSA). >=20 > A LSA seems to contain at least > - "LSP encoding type" and > - "switching type". >=20 > In all cases, the parameters seem to be "Ethernet" and "L2SC"=20 > respectively. >=20 > At least draft-papadimitriou-enhanced-lsps-04 explictly says that WAN > PHY and LAN PHY both fall in the Ethernet "LSP Encoding Type". >=20 > draft-dimitri-gels-framework-00 seems to suggest that perhaps new > encoding types must be invented. I take it that I misunderstood, and > this will be defined in the "Switching Capability-Specific=20 > Information" > part of the LSA. >=20 > I tried looking, and Adrian's excellent Internet and it's protocols > lists that the "Switching Capability-Specific Information" for L2SC > only lists "minimum bandwidth" and "MTU". >=20 > Am I correct that the GELS working group will look into extensions for > this purpose? I'm currently not interested (yet) in the specific > details, but mostly in the general idea here. Is there by any chance a > list of already defined "Switching Capability-Specific Information" > parameters for other layers? Perhaps a list of internet drafts to go > through. >=20 > I might be wrong here somewhere -- somehow WAN/LAN PHY and IEEE 802.1q > VLAN or not capable seem other type of parameters to me then "MTU" > (which is currently defined for L2SC). If so -- what am I missing? >=20 > Regards, > Freek >=20 >=20 >=20 Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 08 May 2006 11:38:20 +0000 Message-ID: <002d01c6728a$f0dce6e0$0601a8c0@pc6> Reply-To: "Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> From: "Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com> To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, <tnadeau@cisco.com> Subject: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-13.txt Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 12:31:35 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A stray doubt or so on this:-( 1) RFC2434 is referenced in the IANA considerations but not in the list of references. 2) p.2 ..advandtage ... 3) I am confused by the enumeration gmplsFreeformLabel(3); this also appears in the DESCRIPTION of GmplsLabelTypeTC in draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib-10.txt but I see no such enumeration defined. Should this be gmplsFreeformGeneralizedLabel(3)? 4) p.8 ... accsesible ... Presumably, this will always be gmplsLabelType(4) for mplsInSegmentLabelPtr and mplsOutSegmentLabelPtr 5) I think that on p.23, ::= { mplsStdMIB XXX } should be ::= { mplsStdMIB ZZZ } in order to conform to the instructions to the RFC Editor (I know, they are intelligent enough to get it right but I do like things to be as simple as possible) 6) Likewise, I think that on p.12, ::= { mplsStdMIB XXX } should be ::= { mplsStdMIB YYY } in order to conform to the instructions to the RFC editor 7) I notice that references to the tc-mib are variously to it as its to-be-assigned RFC number - eg p.22 - or to it as [GMPLSTCMIB] - eg p.21; not a problem, I assume that this is a matter of style. Tom Petch Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 08 May 2006 02:44:01 +0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:subject:mime-version:content-type; b=p7LsTGR49ZtLFfttfMG64UTxB7sQlO0lOooXNQN9dQ50S4Dd8N9SFkYtnv8MC/9mBAFseBw8FVMG2lUgQba4WyDhG3pob31+WnoZazcFf5Ui3TVfYf9jFB8xseh9olEllwsCcy5wyX4sYIlcnLxBTDtsfBX0voOPjWrzjp7YClU= Message-ID: <407784b60605071938y7efbbfaek7f6c518b1de0c63@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 09:38:35 +0700 From: "stephen kwaku" <stevekwaku1@gmail.com> Subject: DEAR FRIEND MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_1392_27499254.1147055915677" ------=_Part_1392_27499254.1147055915677 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Mr. Steven Kwaku Address : United Nation Refugee Camp. Thailand. Dear Sir, With due respect trust and humanity. I write you this letter which I believ= e wouldbe of great interest to you. I got your contact from a business directory here in Thailand chamber of commerce and industry, I decided to unfold my investment plan to you of which I am convince as to solicit for your support and assistance after reading your profile. I am Mr. Steven Kwaku the son of late brigadier Johnson Kwaku of Congo . My late father was in charge of arms and ammunition procurement for the Congo Amry under President Joseph Kabila. He was arrested and shot in the current crises in my country by the rebel forces. Before his death he was able to confirm personally to us of an existence deposit of $12.5M (Twelve Million five hundred thousand United state dollars only) which he deposited in a private security company here in Thailand for safekeeping. After the death of my father, I was able to escape along with my mother to Thailand where we seek asylum as refugee but unfortunately my mother was killed in Phuket in southern Thailand on 26th December 2004 by tsunami wave and her body was never found as she was flushed away by the sea. Her death turned my life to an orphan with unbearable condition. Now I have certified the existence of the fund in the security vault with all the appropriate documents of the fund in my hand as the next of kin/ beneficiary of the fund. Now I have concluded arrangement to clear the trunk box containing the mone= y out from the security company so that I can transfer the fund out of Thailand for investment partnership because due to my current status as a political refugee here I am limited to handle such huge amount of cash as I am also limited from operating a bank account as a refugee here in Thailand= . For the above reason, I have decided to seek for an assistance and help fro= m you as a foreign partner to enable us reach a contract joint venture partnership agreement to transfer and invest the fund in a profitable business orientation in your country under long time joint venture partnership to enable us entrust the investment in your care and management as soon as it is cleared from the security vault here in Thailand. (1) I will offer a 35% reasonable percentage from the total fund as a rewar= d for all your help in transferring of the fund to your Bank account in your country. (2) I will map out 5% of the total fund to meet up any expenses made by bot= h parties during the transaction. (3) To enable me relocate and settle in your country as soon as the fund is successfully transferred to your account. (4) To reach a long-term partnership agreement to entrust the investment in your management. Please, go to the below site so you can understand the present situation in my country. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/country_profiles/1076794.stm Note this transaction is 100% risk free from both sides, So you should not entertain any fear. For the interest of this transaction do not hesitate to contact me on my direct email: Yours Sincerely. Mr. Steven Kwaku ------=_Part_1392_27499254.1147055915677 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline <p>Mr. Steven Kwaku<br>Address : United Nation Refugee Camp. Thailand.</p> <p>Dear Sir,</p> <p>With due respect trust and humanity. I write you this letter which I bel= ieve wouldbe of great interest to you. I got your contact from a business d= irectory here in Thailand chamber of commerce and industry, I decided to un= fold my investment plan to you of which I am convince as to solicit for you= r support and assistance after reading your profile.=20 </p> <p>I am Mr. Steven Kwaku the son of late brigadier Johnson Kwaku of Congo .= My late father was in charge of arms and ammunition procurement for the Co= ngo Amry under President Joseph Kabila. He was arrested and shot in the cur= rent crises in my country by the rebel forces. Before his death he was able= to confirm personally to us of an existence deposit of $12.5M (Twelve Mill= ion five hundred thousand United state dollars only) which he deposited in = a private security company here in Thailand for safekeeping.=20 </p> <p>After the death of my father, I was able to escape along with my mother = to Thailand where we seek asylum as refugee but unfortunately my mother was= killed in Phuket in southern Thailand on 26th December 2004 by tsunami wav= e and her body was never found as she was flushed away by the sea. Her deat= h turned my life to an orphan with unbearable condition. Now I have certifi= ed the existence of the fund in the security vault with all the appropriate= documents of the fund in my hand as the next of kin/ beneficiary of the fu= nd.=20 </p> <p>Now I have concluded arrangement to clear the trunk box containing the m= oney out from the security company so that I can transfer the fund out of T= hailand for investment partnership because due to my current status as a po= litical refugee here I am limited to handle such huge amount of cash as I a= m also limited from operating a bank account as a refugee here in Thailand.= =20 </p> <p>For the above reason, I have decided to seek for an assistance and help = from you as a foreign partner to enable us reach a contract joint venture p= artnership agreement to transfer and invest the fund in a profitable busine= ss orientation in your country under long time joint venture partnership to= enable us entrust the investment in your care and management as soon as it= is cleared from the security vault here in Thailand.=20 </p> <p>(1) I will offer a 35% reasonable percentage from the total fund as a re= ward for all your help in transferring of the fund to your Bank account in = your country.</p> <p>(2) I will map out 5% of the total fund to meet up any expenses made by = both parties during the transaction. </p> <p>(3) To enable me relocate and settle in your country as soon as the fund= is successfully transferred to your account.</p> <p>(4) To reach a long-term partnership agreement to entrust the investment= in your management. </p> <p>Please, go to the below site so you can understand the present situation= in my country.</p> <p><a href=3D"http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/country_profiles/1076794.st= m">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/country_profiles/1076794.stm</a> </p> <p>Note this transaction is 100% risk free from both sides, So you should n= ot entertain any fear. For the interest of this transaction do not hesitate= to contact me on my direct email:</p> <p><br>Yours Sincerely. </p> <p>Mr. Steven Kwaku</p> <p> <br></p> ------=_Part_1392_27499254.1147055915677-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Fri, 05 May 2006 19:07:50 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v749.3) Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=Apple-Mail-19-1045133920 Message-Id: <DD97E695-43B6-4BF7-B461-25ACA40B1689@cisco.com> Cc: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, ccamp@ops.ietf.org, Wijnen Bert <bwijnen@lucent.com>, "Dan ((E-mail)) Romascanu" <dromasca@avaya.com>, Cucchiara Joan <jcucchiara@mindspring.com>, Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>, "Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" <dbrungard@att.com> From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <tnadeau@cisco.com> Subject: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 15:07:38 -0400 To: internet-drafts@ietf.org --Apple-Mail-19-1045133920 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Adrian/Deborah, I have updated draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt as per Joan's last MIB Doctor review comment. This draft and the corresponding CCAMP MIB modules are ready now to go to the IESG. --Tom --Apple-Mail-19-1045133920 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; x-unix-mode=0644; name="draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt Network Working Group Thomas D. Nadeau, Ed. Internet Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. Proposed Status: Standards Track Expires: September 2006 Adrian Farrel, Ed. Old Dog Consulting April 2006 Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Label Switching Router (LSR) Management Information Base draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 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 This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes managed objects to configure and/or monitor a Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Label Switching Router (LSR). Table of Contents 1. Introduction ..................................... 2 1.1. Migration Strategy ............................. 3 Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 1] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 2. Terminology ...................................... 3 3. The Internet-Standard Management Framework ....... 4 4. Outline .......................................... 5 4.1 MIB Modules ..................................... 5 4.1.1 Summary of the GMPLS-LSR-STD-MIB Module ....... 5 4.1.2 Summary of the GMPLS-LABEL-STD-MIB Module ..... 5 4.2. Configuring Statically Provisioned LSPs ........ 6 5. Bidirectional LSPs ............................... 6 6. Example of LSP Setup ............................. 7 7. GMPLS Label Switching Router MIB Definitions .... 11 8. GMPLS Label MIB Definitions ..................... 22 9. Security Considerations ......................... 37 10. Acknowledgments ................................ 38 11. IANA Considerations ............................ 38 11.1. IANA Considerations for GMPLS-LSR-STD-MIB .... 38 11.2. IANA Considerations for GMPLS-LABEL-STD-MIB .. 39 12. References ..................................... 39 12.1. Normative References ......................... 39 12.2. Informative References ....................... 40 13. Contact Information ............................ 41 14. Intellectual Property Considerations ........... 42 15. Full Copyright Statement ....................... 42 1. Introduction This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes managed objects for modeling a Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) [RFC3945] Label Switching Router (LSR). Comments should be made directly to the CCAMP mailing list at ccamp@ops.ietf.org. 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 BCP 14, RFC 2119, reference [RFC2119]. 1.1. Migration Strategy MPLS LSRs may be modeled and managed using the MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB module [RFC3813]. LSRs may be migrated to be modeled and managed using the MIB modules in this document in order to migrate the LSRs to GMPLS support, or to take advandtage of additional MIB objects defined in these MIB modules that are applicable to MPLS-TE. Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 2] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 The GMPLS LSR MIB module (GMPLS-LSR-STD-MIB) defined in this document extends the MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB module [RFC3813] through a series of sparse augmentations of the MIB tables. The only additions are for support of GMPLS or to support the increased complexity of MPLS and GMPLS systems. In order to migrate from MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB support to GMPLS-LSR-STD-MIB support an implementation needs only to add support for the additional tables and objects defined in GMPLS-LSR-STD-MIB. The gmplsInterfaceSignalingCaps object allows an implementation to use the objects and tables of GMPLS-LSR-STD-MIB without supporting the GMPLS protocols. The GMPLS Label MIB module (GMPLS-LABEL-STD-MIB) also defined in this document allows labels to be configured and examined, and supports more varieties of label as appropriate for GMPLS. Labels may be referenced using a row pointer from objects within the GMPLS-LSR-STD-MIB module. MPLS implementations (MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB) may also reference labels held in the GMPLS-LABEL-STD-MIB module through the various label pointer objects in the MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB module (such as mplsInSegmentLabelPtr), and may do so without implementing the GMPLS-LSR-STD-MIB module. The companion document modeling and managing GMPLS based traffic engineering [GMPLSTEMIB] extends the MPLS-TE-STD-MIB module [RFC3812] with the same intentions. Textual conventions are defined in [GMPLSTCMIB] which extends the=20 set of textual conventions originally defined in [RFC3811]. 2. Terminology This document uses terminology from the document describing the MPLS architecture [RFC3031] and the GMPLS architecture [RFC3945]. A label switched path (LSP) is modeled as a connection consisting of one or more incoming segments (in-segments) and/or one or more outgoing segments (out-segments) at an LSR. The association or interconnection of the in-segments and out-segments is accomplished by using a cross-connect. We use the terminology "connection" and "LSP" interchangeably where the meaning is clear from the context. in-segment This is analogous to a GMPLS label on an interface. out-segment This is analogous to a GMPLS label on an interface. cross-connect This describes the conceptual connection between a set of in-segments and out-segments. Note that either set may be empty; for example, a cross-connect may Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 3] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 connect only out-segments together with no in-segments in the case where an LSP originates on an LSR. The terms 'ingress' and 'head-end' (or 'head') are used in this document to indicate the signaling source of an LSP. This is sometimes also referred to as the 'sender'. The terms 'egress' and 'tail-end' (or 'tail') are used in this document to indicate the signaling destination of an LSP. The term 'upstream' is used in this document to refer to the part of an LSP closer to the ingress than the current point of reference. The term 'downstream' is used in this document to refer to the part of an LSP closer to the egress than the current point of reference. The term 'forward' is used in this document to indicate the direction of data flow from the ingress toward the egress. The term 'reverse' is used in this document to indicate the direction of data flow from the egress toward the ingress. 3. The Internet-Standard Management Framework For a detailed overview of the documents that describe the current Internet-Standard Management Framework, please refer to section 7 of RFC 3410 [RFC3410]. Managed objects are accessed via a virtual information store, termed the Management Information Base or MIB. MIB objects are generally accessed through the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP). Objects in the MIB are defined using the mechanisms defined in the Structure of Management Information (SMI). This memo specifies a MIB module that is compliant to the SMIv2, which is described in STD 58, RFC 2578 [RFC2578], STD 58, RFC 2579 [RFC2579] and STD 58, RFC 2580 [RFC2580]. 4. Outline 4.1 MIB Modules There are two MIB modules defined in this document. The GMPLS-LSR-STD-MIB module contains tables that sparse augment tables defined in the MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB module [RFC3813]. This MIB module is used in conjunction with the MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB module [RFC3813] in systems that support GMPLS. Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 4] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 The GMPLS-LABEL-STD-MIB module contains objects for managing GMPLS labels when they cannot be represented using the textual conventions of the MPLS-TC-STD-MIB module [RFC3811], or when more detailed access to the sub-fields of the labels is required. 4.1.1 Summary of the GMPLS-LSR-STD-MIB Module The MIB tables in the GMPLS-LSR-STD-MIB module are as follows. - The interface configuration table (gmplsInterfaceTable), which sparse augments the mplsInterfaceTable [RFC3813] to enable the GMPLS protocol on MPLS-capable interfaces. - The in-segment (gmplsInSegmentTable) and out-segment (gmplsOutSegmentTable) tables sparse augment mplsInSegmentTable and mplsOutSegmentTable [RFC3813] to enable configuration of GMPLS-specific parameters for LSP segments at an LSR. These tables are described in the subsequent sections. 4.1.2 Summary of the GMPLS-LABEL-STD-MIB Module There is one MIB table in the GMPLS-LABEL-STD-MIB module as follows. - The gmplsLabelTable allows Generalized Labels to be defined and managed in a central location. Generalized Labels can be of variable length and have distinct bit-by-bit interpretations depending upon how they are defined for the specific technology in which they are used. For example, labels used for MPLS packet switching are different in length and content from labels used in TDM timeslot switching. 4.2. Configuring Statically Provisioned LSPs Configuring statically provisioned GMPLS LSPs through an LSR involves the following steps: - Configuring an interface using the MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB module [RFC3813]. - Enabling GMPLS on GMPLS capable interfaces using the GMPLS-LSR-STD-MIB module in this document. - Configuring in and out-segments using the MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB module [RFC3813]. - Configuring GMPLS extensions to the in-segments and out-segments Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 5] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 using the GMPLS-LSR-STD-MIB module in this document. - Setting up the cross-connect table in the MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB module [RFC3813] to associate segments and/or to indicate connection origination and termination. - Optionally setting up labels in the label table in the GMPLS-LABEL-STD-MIB module in this document if the textual convention MplsLabel [RFC3811] is not capable of holding the required label (for example, if the label requires more than 32 bits to encode it), or if the operator wishes to disambiguate GMPLS label types. - Optionally specifying label stack actions in the MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB module [RFC3813]. - Optionally specifying segment traffic parameters in the MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB module [RCF3813]. 5. Bidirectional LSPs The GMPLS-LSR-STD-MIB module supports bidirectional LSPs as required for GMPLS. A single value of mplsXCIndex is shared by all of the segments for the entire bidirectional LSP. This facilitates a simple reference from [RFC3812] and [GMPLSTEMIB], and makes fate-sharing more obvious. It is, however, important that the direction of segments is understood to avoid connecting all in-segments to all out-segments. This is achieved by an object in each segment that indicates the direction of the segment with respect to data flow. A segment that is marked as 'forward' carries data from the 'head' of the LSP to the 'tail'. A segment marked as 'reverse' carries data in the reverse direction. Where an LSP is signaled using a conventional signaling protocol, the 'head' of the LSP is the source of the signaling (also known as the ingress) and the 'tail' is the destination (also known as the egress). For manually configured LSPs an arbitrary decision must be made about which segments are 'forward' and which 'reverse'. For consistency this decision should be made across all LSRs that participate in the LSP by assigning 'head' and 'tail' ends to the LSP. 6. Example of LSP Setup In this section we provide a brief example of using the MIB objects Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 6] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 described in sections 7 and 8 to set up an LSP. While this example is not meant to illustrate every nuance of the MIB modules, it is intended as an aid to understanding some of the key concepts. It is meant to be read after going through the MIB modules themselves. A prerequisite is an understanding of the MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB [RFC3813]. Suppose that one would like to manually create a best-effort, bi-directional LSP. Assume that, in the forward direction, the LSP enters the LSR via MPLS interface A with ifIndex 12 and exits the LSR via MPLS interface B with ifIndex 13. For the reverse direction, we assume the LSP enters via interface B and leaves via interface A (i.e. the forward and reverse directions use the same bi-directional interfaces). Let us also assume that we do not wish to have a label stack beneath the top label on the outgoing labeled packets. The following example illustrates which rows and corresponding objects might be created to accomplish this. We must first create rows in the gmplsLabelTable corresponding to the labels required for each of the forward and reverse direction in- and out-segments. For the purpose of this example the forward and reverse labels on each interface will be the same, hence we need to create just two rows in the gmplsLabelTable - one for each interface. In gmplsLabelTable: { gmplsLabelInterface =3D 12, gmplsLabelIndex =3D 1, gmplsLabelSubindex =3D 0, gmplsLabelType =3D gmplsFreeformLabel(3), gmplsLabelFreeform =3D 0x123456789ABCDEF0 gmplsLabelRowStatus =3D createAndGo(4) } In gmplsLabelTable: { gmplsLabelInterface =3D 13, gmplsLabelIndex =3D 1, gmplsLabelSubindex =3D 0, gmplsLabelType =3D gmplsFreeformLabel(3), gmplsLabelFreeform =3D 0xFEDCBA9876543210 gmplsLabelRowStatus =3D createAndGo(4) } We must next create the appropriate in-segment and out-segment entries. These are done in [RFC3813] using the mplsInSegmentTable and mplsOutSegmentTable. Note that we use a row pointer to the two rows in the gmplsLabelTable rather than specifying the labels explicitly in the in- and out-segment tables. Also note that the row status for Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 7] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 each row is set to createAndWait(5) to allow corresponding entries in the gmplsInSegmentTable and gmplsOutSegmentTable to be created. For the forward direction. In mplsInSegmentTable: { mplsInSegmentIndex =3D 0x00000015 mplsInSegmentLabel =3D 0, -- incoming label in label = table mplsInSegmentNPop =3D 1, mplsInSegmentInterface =3D 12, -- incoming interface -- RowPointer MUST point to the first accsesible column. mplsInSegmentTrafficParamPtr =3D 0.0, mplsInSegmentLabelPtr =3D gmplsLabelTable (12, 1, 0) mplsInSegmentRowStatus =3D createAndWait(5) } In mplsOutSegmentTable: { mplsOutSegmentIndex =3D 0x00000012, mplsOutSegmentInterface =3D 13, -- outgoing interface mplsOutSegmentPushTopLabel =3D true(1), mplsOutSegmentTopLabel =3D 0, -- outgoing label in label = table -- RowPointer MUST point to the first accessible column. mplsOutSegmentTrafficParamPtr =3D 0.0, mplsOutSegmentLabelPtr =3D gmplsLabelTable (13, 1, 0) mplsOutSegmentRowStatus =3D createAndWait(5) } For the reverse direction. In mplsInSegmentTable: { mplsInSegmentIndex =3D 0x00000016 mplsInSegmentLabel =3D 0, -- incoming label in label = table mplsInSegmentNPop =3D 1, mplsInSegmentInterface =3D 13, -- incoming interface -- RowPointer MUST point to the first accessible column. mplsInSegmentTrafficParamPtr =3D 0.0, mplsInSegmentLabelPtr =3D gmplsLabelTable (13, 1, 0) mplsInSegmentRowStatus =3D createAndWait(5) } In mplsOutSegmentTable: Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 8] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 { mplsOutSegmentIndex =3D 0x00000013, mplsOutSegmentInterface =3D 12, -- outgoing interface mplsOutSegmentPushTopLabel =3D true(1), mplsOutSegmentTopLabel =3D 0, -- outgoing label in label = table -- RowPointer MUST point to the first accessible column. mplsOutSegmentTrafficParamPtr =3D 0.0, mplsOutSegmentLabelPtr =3D gmplsLabelTable (12, 1, 0) mplsOutSegmentRowStatus =3D createAndWait(5) } These table entries are extended by entries in gmplsInSegmentTable and gmplsOutSegmentTable. Note that the nature of the 'extends' relationship is a sparse augmentation so that the entry in gmplsInSegmentTable has the same index values as the entry in mplsInSegmentTable. Similarly, the entry in gmplsOutSegmentTable has the same index values as the entry in mplsOutSegmentTable. First for the forward direction: In gmplsInSegmentTable(0x00000015) { gmplsInSegmentDirection =3D forward (1) } In gmplsOutSegmentTable(0x00000012) { gmplsOutSegmentDirection =3D forward (1) } Next for the reverse direction: In gmplsInSegmentTable(0x00000016) { gmplsInSegmentDirection =3D reverse (2) } In gmplsOutSegmentTable(0x00000013) { gmplsOutSegmentDirection =3D reverse (2) } Next, two cross-connect entries are created in the mplsXCTable of the MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB [RFC3813], thereby associating the newly created segments together. Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 9] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 In mplsXCTable: { mplsXCIndex =3D 0x01, mplsXCInSegmentIndex =3D 0x00000015, mplsXCOutSegmentIndex =3D 0x00000012, mplsXCLspId =3D 0x0102 -- unique ID mplsXCLabelStackIndex =3D 0x00, -- only a single outgoing = label mplsXCRowStatus =3D createAndGo(4) } In mplsXCTable: { mplsXCIndex =3D 0x02, mplsXCInSegmentIndex =3D 0x00000016, mplsXCOutSegmentIndex =3D 0x00000013, mplsXCLspId =3D 0x0102 -- unique ID mplsXCLabelStackIndex =3D 0x00, -- only a single outgoing = label mplsXCRowStatus =3D createAndGo(4) } Finally, the in-segments and out-segments are activated. In mplsInSegmentTable(0x00000015): { mplsInSegmentRowStatus =3D active(1) } In mplsInSegmentTable(0x00000016): { mplsInSegmentRowStatus =3D active(1) } In mplsOutSegmentTable(0x00000012): { mplsOutSegmentRowStatus =3D active(1) } In mplsOutSegmentTable(0x00000013): { mplsOutSegmentRowStatus =3D active(1) } 7. GMPLS Label Switching Router MIB Definitions This MIB module makes references to the following documents. [RFC2578], [RFC2579], [RFC2580], [GMPLSTCMIB], [RFC3811], [RFC2863] and [RFC3813]. Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 10] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 GMPLS-LSR-STD-MIB DEFINITIONS ::=3D BEGIN IMPORTS MODULE-IDENTITY, OBJECT-TYPE, Unsigned32, zeroDotZero FROM SNMPv2-SMI -- RFC2578 MODULE-COMPLIANCE, OBJECT-GROUP FROM SNMPv2-CONF -- RFC2580 RowPointer FROM SNMPv2-TC -- RFC2579 GmplsSegmentDirectionTC FROM GMPLS-TC-STD-MIB -- GMPLSTCMIB -- RFC-Editor please resolve the reference above to GMPLSTCMIB -- using the assigned RFC number and remove this note mplsInterfaceIndex, mplsInSegmentIndex, mplsOutSegmentIndex, mplsInterfaceGroup, mplsInSegmentGroup, mplsOutSegmentGroup, mplsXCGroup, mplsPerfGroup, mplsLsrNotificationGroup FROM MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB -- RFC3813 ifGeneralInformationGroup, ifCounterDiscontinuityGroup FROM IF-MIB -- RFC2863 mplsStdMIB FROM MPLS-TC-STD-MIB -- RFC3811 ; gmplsLsrStdMIB MODULE-IDENTITY LAST-UPDATED "200604060001Z" -- 06 April 2006 00:00:01 GMT ORGANIZATION "IETF Common Control And Measurement Plane (CCAMP) Working Group" CONTACT-INFO " Thomas D. Nadeau Cisco Systems, Inc. Email: tnadeau@cisco.com Adrian Farrel Old Dog Consulting Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk Comments about this document should be emailed direct to the CCAMP working group mailing list at ccamp@ops.ietf.org" DESCRIPTION "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This version of this MIB module is part of RFC XXX; see the RFC itself for full legal notices. -- RFC Editor. Please replace XXX above with the correct RFC number and -- remove this note. This MIB module contains managed object definitions for the Generalized Multiprotocol (GMPLS) Label Switching Router as defined in: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 11] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 Architecture, Mannie et al., RFC 3945, October 2004." REVISION "200604060001Z" -- 06 April 2006 00:00:01 GMT DESCRIPTION "Initial version issued as part of RFC XXX." ::=3D { mplsStdMIB XXX } -- RFC Editor. Please replace XXX above with the correct RFC number and -- remove this note. -- RFC Editor. Please replace YYY above with the OID assigned by IANA -- and remove this note -- no notifications are currently defined. gmplsLsrObjects OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=3D { gmplsLsrStdMIB 1 } gmplsLsrConformance OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=3D { gmplsLsrStdMIB 2 } gmplsInterfaceTable OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF GmplsInterfaceEntry MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "This table specifies per-interface GMPLS capability and associated information. It extends the information in mplsInterfaceTable of the MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB through a sparse augmentation relationship." REFERENCE "1. Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switching (LSR) Router Management Information Base (MIB), RFC 3813." ::=3D { gmplsLsrObjects 1 } gmplsInterfaceEntry OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX GmplsInterfaceEntry MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "A conceptual row in this table is created automatically by an LSR for each interface that is both capable of supporting GMPLS and that is configured to support GMPLS. Note that support of GMPLS is not limited to control plane signaling, but may include data-plane only function configured through SNMP SET commands performed on this MIB module. A conceptual row in this table may also be created via SNMP SET commands or automatically by the LSR to supplement a conceptual row in the mplsInterfaceTable where the interface is not capable of GMPLS but where the other objects carried Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 12] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 in this row provide useful additional information for an MPLS interface. A conceptual row in this table will exist if and only if a corresponding entry in mplsInterfaceTable exists, and a corresponding entry in ifTable exists with ifType =3D mpls(166). If the associated entry in ifTable is operationally disabled (thus removing the GMPLS capabilities on the interface) or the entry in mplsInterfaceTable is deleted, the corresponding entry in this table MUST be deleted shortly thereafter. The indexes are the same as for mplsInterfaceTable. Thus, the entry with index 0 represents the per-platform label space and contains parameters that apply to all interfaces that participate in the per-platform label space." REFERENCE "1. Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switching (LSR) Router Management Information Base (MIB), RFC 3813." INDEX { mplsInterfaceIndex } ::=3D { gmplsInterfaceTable 1 } GmplsInterfaceEntry ::=3D SEQUENCE { gmplsInterfaceSignalingCaps BITS, gmplsInterfaceRsvpHelloPeriod Unsigned32 } gmplsInterfaceSignalingCaps OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX BITS { unknown (0), rsvpGmpls (1), crldpGmpls (2), -- note the use of CR-LDP is deprecated otherGmpls (3) } MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Defines the signaling capabilities on this interface. Multiple bits may legitimately be set at once, but if 'unknown' is set then no other bit may be set. Setting no bits implies that GMPLS signaling cannot be performed on this interface and all LSPs must be manually provisioned or that this table entry is only present to supplement an entry in the mplsInterfaceTable by providing the information carried in other objects in this row." REFERENCE "1. Generalized MPLS Signaling - CR-LDP Extensions, RFC 3472. 2. The Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Working Group decision on MPLS signaling protocols, RFC 3468. 3. Generalized MPLS Signaling - RSVP-TE Extensions, RFC 3473. Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 13] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 " DEFVAL { { rsvpGmpls } } ::=3D { gmplsInterfaceEntry 1 } gmplsInterfaceRsvpHelloPeriod OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Unsigned32 UNITS "milliseconds" MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Period, in milliseconds, between sending RSVP Hello messages on this interface. A value of 0 indicates that no Hello messages should be sent on this interface. This object is only valid if gmplsInterfaceSignalingCaps has no bits set or includes the rsvpGmpls bit." REFERENCE "1. RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels, RFC 3209, section 5. 2. Generalized MPLS Signaling - RSVP-TE Extensions, RFC 3473, section 9.3." DEFVAL { 3000 } ::=3D { gmplsInterfaceEntry 2 } gmplsInSegmentTable OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF GmplsInSegmentEntry MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "This table sparse augments the mplsInSegmentTable of the MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB to provide GMPLS-specific information about incoming segments to an LSR." REFERENCE "1. Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switching (LSR) Router Management Information Base (MIB), RFC 3813." ::=3D { gmplsLsrObjects 2 } gmplsInSegmentEntry OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX GmplsInSegmentEntry MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "An entry in this table extends the representation of an incoming segment represented by an entry in mplsInSegmentTable in the MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB through a sparse augmentation. An entry can be created by a network administrator via SNMP SET commands, or in response to signaling protocol events. Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 14] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 Note that the storage type for this entry is given by the value of mplsInSegmentStorageType in the corresponding entry of the mplsInSegmentTable." REFERENCE "1. Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switching (LSR) Router Management Information Base (MIB), RFC 3813." INDEX { mplsInSegmentIndex } ::=3D { gmplsInSegmentTable 1 } GmplsInSegmentEntry ::=3D SEQUENCE { gmplsInSegmentDirection GmplsSegmentDirectionTC, gmplsInSegmentExtraParamsPtr RowPointer } gmplsInSegmentDirection OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX GmplsSegmentDirectionTC MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "This object indicates the direction of data flow on this segment. This object cannot be modified if mplsInSegmentRowStatus for the corresponding entry in the mplsInSegmentTable is active(1)." REFERENCE "1. Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switching (LSR) Router Management Information Base (MIB), RFC 3813." DEFVAL { forward } ::=3D { gmplsInSegmentEntry 1 } gmplsInSegmentExtraParamsPtr OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX RowPointer MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Some Tunnels will run over transports that can usefully support technology-specific additional parameters (for example, SONET resource usage). Such can be supplied from an external table and referenced from here. A value of zeroDotzero in this attribute indicates that there is no such additional information." DEFVAL { zeroDotZero } ::=3D { gmplsInSegmentEntry 2 } gmplsOutSegmentTable OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF GmplsOutSegmentEntry MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 15] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 "This table sparse augments the mplsOutSegmentTable of the MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB to provide GMPLS-specific information about outgoing segments from an LSR." REFERENCE "1. Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switching (LSR) Router Management Information Base (MIB), RFC 3813." ::=3D { gmplsLsrObjects 3 } gmplsOutSegmentEntry OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX GmplsOutSegmentEntry MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "An entry in this table extends the representation of an outgoing segment represented by an entry in mplsOutSegmentTable of the MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB through a sparse augmentation. An entry can be created by a network administrator via SNMP SET commands, or in response to signaling protocol events. Note that the storage type for this entry is given by the value of mplsOutSegmentStorageType in the corresponding entry of the mplsOutSegmentTable." REFERENCE "1. Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switching (LSR) Router Management Information Base (MIB), RFC 3813." INDEX { mplsOutSegmentIndex } ::=3D { gmplsOutSegmentTable 1 } GmplsOutSegmentEntry ::=3D SEQUENCE { gmplsOutSegmentDirection GmplsSegmentDirectionTC, gmplsOutSegmentTTLDecrement Unsigned32, gmplsOutSegmentExtraParamsPtr RowPointer } gmplsOutSegmentDirection OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX GmplsSegmentDirectionTC MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "This object indicates the direction of data flow on this segment. This object cannot be modified if mplsOutSegmentRowStatus for the corresponding entry in the mplsOutSegmentTable is active(1)." REFERENCE "1. Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switching (LSR) Router Management Information Base (MIB), RFC 3813." DEFVAL { forward } ::=3D { gmplsOutSegmentEntry 1 } Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 16] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 gmplsOutSegmentTTLDecrement OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Unsigned32 MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "This object indicates the amount by which to decrement the TTL of any payload packets forwarded on this segment if per-hop decrementing is being done. A value of zero indicates that no decrement should be made or that per-hop decrementing is not in use. See the gmplsTunnelTTLDecrement object in the gmplsTunnelTable of GMPLS-TE-STD-MIB for a value by which to decrement the TTL for the whole of a tunnel. This object cannot be modified if mplsOutSegmentRowStatus for the associated entry in the mplsOutSegmentTable is active(1)." REFERENCE "1. Time To Live (TTL) Processing in Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Networks, RFC 3443. 2. Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Management Information Base, RFC XXX." -- RFC Editor. Please insert the correct RFC number and remove this note DEFVAL { 0 } ::=3D { gmplsOutSegmentEntry 2 } gmplsOutSegmentExtraParamsPtr OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX RowPointer MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Some Tunnels will run over transports that can usefully support technology-specific additional parameters (for example, SONET resource usage). Such can be supplied from an external table and referenced from here. A value of zeroDotzero in this attribute indicates that there is no such additional information." DEFVAL { zeroDotZero } ::=3D { gmplsOutSegmentEntry 3 } gmplsLsrGroups OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=3D { gmplsLsrConformance 1 } gmplsLsrCompliances OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=3D { gmplsLsrConformance 2 } Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 17] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 -- Compliance requirement for fully compliant implementations. gmplsLsrModuleFullCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Compliance statement for agents that provide full support for GMPLS-LSR-STD-MIB. The mandatory group has to be implemented by all LSRs that originate, terminate or act as transit for TE-LSPs/tunnels. In addition, depending on the type of tunnels supported, other groups become mandatory as explained below." MODULE IF-MIB -- The Interfaces Group MIB, RFC 2863. MANDATORY-GROUPS { ifGeneralInformationGroup, ifCounterDiscontinuityGroup } MODULE MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB -- The MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB, RFC3813 MANDATORY-GROUPS { mplsInterfaceGroup, mplsInSegmentGroup, mplsOutSegmentGroup, mplsXCGroup, mplsPerfGroup, mplsLsrNotificationGroup } MODULE -- this module MANDATORY-GROUPS { gmplsInterfaceGroup, gmplsInSegmentGroup, gmplsOutSegmentGroup } OBJECT gmplsInSegmentDirection SYNTAX GmplsSegmentDirectionTC MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "The only valid value for unidrectional LSPs is forward(1)." OBJECT gmplsOutSegmentDirection SYNTAX GmplsSegmentDirectionTC Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 18] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "The only valid value for unidrectional LSPs is forward(1)." OBJECT gmplsOutSegmentTTLDecrement MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "Write access is not required." OBJECT gmplsInSegmentExtraParamsPtr MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "Write access is not required." OBJECT gmplsOutSegmentExtraParamsPtr MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "Write access is not required." ::=3D { gmplsLsrCompliances 1 } -- Compliance requirement for implementations that provide read-only -- access. gmplsLsrModuleReadOnlyCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Compliance requirement for implementations that only provide read-only support for GMPLS-LSR-STD-MIB. Such devices can then be monitored but cannot be configured using this MIB module." MODULE IF-MIB -- The interfaces Group MIB, RFC 2863 MANDATORY-GROUPS { ifGeneralInformationGroup, ifCounterDiscontinuityGroup } MODULE MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB MANDATORY-GROUPS { mplsInterfaceGroup, mplsInSegmentGroup, mplsOutSegmentGroup, mplsXCGroup, mplsPerfGroup } Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 19] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 MODULE -- this module MANDATORY-GROUPS { gmplsInterfaceGroup, gmplsInSegmentGroup, gmplsOutSegmentGroup } OBJECT gmplsInterfaceSignalingCaps MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "Write access is not required." OBJECT gmplsInterfaceRsvpHelloPeriod MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "Write access is not required." OBJECT gmplsInSegmentDirection SYNTAX GmplsSegmentDirectionTC MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "The only valid value for unidrectional LSPs is forward(1)." OBJECT gmplsInSegmentExtraParamsPtr MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "Write access is not required." OBJECT gmplsOutSegmentDirection MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "The only valid value for unidrectional LSPs is forward(1)." OBJECT gmplsOutSegmentTTLDecrement MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "Write access is not required." OBJECT gmplsOutSegmentExtraParamsPtr MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "Write access is not required." ::=3D { gmplsLsrCompliances 2 } gmplsInterfaceGroup OBJECT-GROUP OBJECTS { Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 20] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 gmplsInterfaceSignalingCaps, gmplsInterfaceRsvpHelloPeriod } STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Collection of objects which provide additional=20 information for an MPLS interface and are needed=20 for GMPLS interface configuration and performance=20 information." ::=3D { gmplsLsrGroups 1 } gmplsInSegmentGroup OBJECT-GROUP OBJECTS { gmplsInSegmentDirection, gmplsInSegmentExtraParamsPtr } STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Collection of objects which provide additional=20 information for an MPLS in-segment and are needed=20 for GMPLS in-segment configuration and performance=20 information." ::=3D { gmplsLsrGroups 2 } gmplsOutSegmentGroup OBJECT-GROUP OBJECTS { gmplsOutSegmentDirection, gmplsOutSegmentTTLDecrement, gmplsOutSegmentExtraParamsPtr } STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Collection of objects which provide additional=20 information for an MPLS out-segment and are needed=20 for GMPLS out-segment configuration and performance=20 information." ::=3D { gmplsLsrGroups 3 } END 8. GMPLS Label MIB Definitions This MIB module makes references to the following documents. [RFC2578], [RFC2579], [RFC2580], [GMPLSTCMIB], [RFC3811], [RFC2863], [RFC3289], [RFC3813], and [RFC3471]. =20 GMPLS-LABEL-STD-MIB DEFINITIONS ::=3D BEGIN Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 21] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 IMPORTS MODULE-IDENTITY, OBJECT-TYPE, Unsigned32, Integer32 FROM SNMPv2-SMI -- RFC2578 MODULE-COMPLIANCE, OBJECT-GROUP FROM SNMPv2-CONF -- RFC2580 RowStatus, StorageType FROM SNMPv2-TC -- RFC2579 InterfaceIndexOrZero FROM IF-MIB -- RFC2863 IndexIntegerNextFree FROM DIFFSERV-MIB -- RFC3289 MplsLabel, mplsStdMIB FROM MPLS-TC-STD-MIB -- RFC3811 GmplsLabelTypeTC, GmplsFreeformLabelTC FROM GMPLS-TC-STD-MIB -- GMPLSTCMIB -- RFC-Editor. Please resolve the reference above to GMPLSTCMIB=20 -- to use the assigned RFC number and remove this note ; gmplsLabelStdMIB MODULE-IDENTITY LAST-UPDATED "200604060001Z" -- 06 April 2006 00:00:01 GMT ORGANIZATION "IETF Common Control And Measurement Plane (CCAMP) Working Group" CONTACT-INFO " Thomas D. Nadeau Cisco Systems, Inc. Email: tnadeau@cisco.com Adrian Farrel Old Dog Consulting Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk Comments about this document should be emailed direct to the CCAMP working group mailing list at ccamp@ops.ietf.org" DESCRIPTION "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This version of this MIB module is part of RFC XXX; see the RFC itself for full legal notices. -- RFC Editor. Please replace XXX above with the correct RFC number and -- remove this note. This MIB module contains managed object definitions for labels within GMPLS systems as defined in: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description, Berger, L. (Editor), RFC 3471, Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 22] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 January 2003." REVISION "200604060001Z" -- 06 April 2006 00:00:01 GMT DESCRIPTION "Initial version issued as part of RFC XXX." ::=3D { mplsStdMIB XXX } -- RFC Editor. Please replace XXX above with the correct RFC number and -- remove this note. -- RFC Editor. Please replace ZZZ above with the OID assigned by IANA -- and remove this note -- no notifications are currently defined. gmplsLabelObjects OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=3D { gmplsLabelStdMIB 1 = } gmplsLabelConformance OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=3D { gmplsLabelStdMIB 2 = } gmplsLabelIndexNext OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX IndexIntegerNextFree MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "This object contains an unused value for gmplsLabelIndex, or a zero to indicate that no unused value exists or is available. A management application wishing to create a row in the gmplsLabelTable may read this object and then attempt to create a row in the table. If row creation fails (because another application has already created a row with the supplied index) the management application should read this object again to get a new index value. When a row is created in the gmplsLabelTable with the gmplsLabelIndex value held by this object, an implementation MUST change the value in this object." ::=3D { gmplsLabelObjects 1 } gmplsLabelTable OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF GmplsLabelEntry MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Table of GMPLS Labels. This table allows the representation of the more complex label forms required for GMPLS which cannot be held within the textual convention MplsLabel. That is labels that cannot be encoded within 32 bits. It is, nevertheless also capable of holding 32 bit labels or regular MPLS labels if Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 23] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 desired. Each entry in this table represents an individual GMPLS label value. Labels in the tables in other MIB modules may be referred to using a row pointer into this table. The indexing of this=20 table provides for arbitrary indexing and also for=20 concatenation of labels. For an example of label concatenation see RFC3945 section 7.1. In essence, a GMPLS label may be composite in order to identify a set of resources in the data plane. Practical examples are timeslots and wavelength sets (which are not contiguous like wavebands). The indexing mechanism allows multiple entries in this table to be seen as a sequence of labels that should be concatenated. Ordering is potentially very sensitive for concatenation." REFERENCE "1. Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Architecture, RFC 3945, section 7.1," ::=3D { gmplsLabelObjects 2 } gmplsLabelEntry OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX GmplsLabelEntry MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "An entry in this table represents a single label value. There are three indexes into the table. - The interface index may be helpful to distinguish which labels are in use on which interfaces or to handle cases where there are a very large number of labels in use in the system. When label representation is desired to apply to the whole system or when it is not important to distinguish labels by their interfaces, this index MAY be set to zero. - The label index provides a way of identifying the label. - The label sub-index is only used for concatenated labels. It identifies each component label. When non-concatenated labels are used, this index SHOULD be set to zero. A storage type object is supplied to control the storage type for each entry, but implementations should note that the storage type of conceptual rows in other tables that include row pointers to an entry in this table SHOULD dictate the storage type of the rows in this table where the row in the other table is more persistent." INDEX { Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 24] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 gmplsLabelInterface, gmplsLabelIndex, gmplsLabelSubindex } ::=3D { gmplsLabelTable 1 } GmplsLabelEntry ::=3D SEQUENCE { gmplsLabelInterface InterfaceIndexOrZero, gmplsLabelIndex Unsigned32, gmplsLabelSubindex Unsigned32, gmplsLabelType GmplsLabelTypeTC, gmplsLabelMplsLabel MplsLabel, gmplsLabelPortWavelength Unsigned32, gmplsLabelFreeform GmplsFreeformLabelTC, gmplsLabelSonetSdhSignalIndex Integer32, gmplsLabelSdhVc Integer32, gmplsLabelSdhVcBranch Integer32, gmplsLabelSonetSdhBranch Integer32, gmplsLabelSonetSdhGroupBranch Integer32, gmplsLabelWavebandId Unsigned32, gmplsLabelWavebandStart Unsigned32, gmplsLabelWavebandEnd Unsigned32, gmplsLabelStorageType StorageType, gmplsLabelRowStatus RowStatus } gmplsLabelInterface OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX InterfaceIndexOrZero MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The interface on which this label is used. If this object is set to zero, the label MUST have applicability across the whole system and is not limited to a single interface." ::=3D { gmplsLabelEntry 1 } gmplsLabelIndex OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..4294967295) MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "An arbitrary index into the table to identify a label. Note that implementations that are representing 32 bit labels within this table MAY choose to align this index with the value of the label and this may result in the use of the value zero since it represents a valid label value. Such implementation=20 should be aware of the implications of sparsely populated=20 tables. Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 25] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 A management application may read the gmplsLabelIndexNext object to find a suitable value for this object." ::=3D { gmplsLabelEntry 2 } gmplsLabelSubindex OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..4294967295) MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "In conjunction with gmplsLabelInterface and gmplsLabelIndex, this object uniquely identifies this row. This sub-index allows a single GMPLS label to be defined as a concatenation of labels. This is particularly useful in TDM. The ordering of sub-labels is strict with the sub-label with lowest gmplsLabelSubindex appearing first. Note that all sub-labels of a single GMPLS label must share the same gmplsLabelInterface and gmplsLabelIndex values. For labels that are not composed of concatenated sub-labels, this value SHOULD be set to zero." ::=3D { gmplsLabelEntry 3 } gmplsLabelType OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX GmplsLabelTypeTC MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Identifies the type of this label. Note that this object does not determine whether MPLS or GMPLS signaling is in use: a value of gmplsMplsLabel (1) denotes that an MPLS packet label is present in the gmplsLabelMplsLabel object and encoded using the MplsLabel textual convention (may be a 20-bit MPLS label, a 10- or 23-bit Frame Relay label, or an ATM label), but does not describe whether this is signaled using MPLS or GMPLS. The value of this object helps determine which of the following objects are valid. This object cannot be modified if gmplsLabelRowStatus is active(1)." REFERENCE "1. Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description, RFC 3471, section 3." ::=3D { gmplsLabelEntry 4 } gmplsLabelMplsLabel OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX MplsLabel MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 26] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 DESCRIPTION "The value of an MPLS label (that is a packet label) if this table is used to store it. This may be used in MPLS systems even though the label values can be adequately stored in the MPLS MIB modules (MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB and MPLS-TE-STD-MIB). Further, in mixed MPLS and GMPLS systems it may be advantageous to store all labels in a single label table. Lastly, in GMPLS systems where packet labels are used (that is in systems that use GMPLS signaling and GMPLS labels for packet switching) it may be desirable to use this table. This object is only valid if gmplsLabelType is set to gmplsMplsLabel (1). This object cannot be modified if gmplsLabelRowStatus is active(1)." REFERENCE "1. MPLS Label Stack Encoding, RFC 3032." DEFVAL { 0 } ::=3D { gmplsLabelEntry 5 } gmplsLabelPortWavelength OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Unsigned32 MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The value of a Port or Wavelength Label when carried as a Generalized Label. Only valid if gmplsLabelType is set to gmplsPortWavelengthLabel(2). This object cannot be modified if gmplsLabelRowStatus is active(1)." REFERENCE "1. Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description, RFC 3471, section 3.2.1.1." DEFVAL { 0 } ::=3D { gmplsLabelEntry 6 } gmplsLabelFreeform OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX GmplsFreeformLabelTC MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The value of a freeform Generalized Label that does not conform to one of the standardized label encoding or that an implementation chooses to represent as an octet string without further decoding. Only valid if gmplsLabelType is set to gmplsFreeformLabel(3). This object cannot be modified if gmplsLabelRowStatus is active(1)." REFERENCE "1. Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 27] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 Functional Description, RFC 3471, section 3.2." DEFVAL { '00'h } ::=3D { gmplsLabelEntry 7 } gmplsLabelSonetSdhSignalIndex OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Integer32 (0..4095) MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The Signal Index value (S) of a SONET or SDH Generalized Label. Zero indicates that this field is not significant. Only valid if gmplsLabelType is set to gmplsSonetLabel(4) or gmplsSdhLabel(5). This object cannot be modified if gmplsLabelRowStatus is active(1)." REFERENCE "1. Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control, RFC 3946, section 3." DEFVAL { 0 } ::=3D { gmplsLabelEntry 8 } gmplsLabelSdhVc OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Integer32 (0..15) MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The VC Indicator (U) of an SDH Generalized Label. Zero indicates that this field is non-significant. Only valid if gmplsLabelType is set to gmplsSdhLabel(5). This object cannot be modified if gmplsLabelRowStatus is active(1)." REFERENCE "1. Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control, RFC 3946, section 3." DEFVAL { 0 } ::=3D { gmplsLabelEntry 9 } gmplsLabelSdhVcBranch OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Integer32 (0..15) MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The VC Branch Indicator (K) of an SDH Generalized Label. Zero indicates that this field is non-significant. Only valid if gmplsLabelType is set to gmplsSdhLabel(5). This object cannot be modified if gmplsLabelRowStatus is active(1)." REFERENCE Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 28] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 "1. Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control, RFC 3946, section 3." DEFVAL { 0 } ::=3D { gmplsLabelEntry 10 } gmplsLabelSonetSdhBranch OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Integer32 (0..15) MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The Branch Indicator (L) of a SONET or SDH Generalized Label. Zero indicates that this field is non-significant. Only valid gmplsLabelType is set to gmplsSonetLabel(4) or gmplsSdhLabel(5). This object cannot be modified if gmplsLabelRowStatus is active(1)." REFERENCE "1. Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control, RFC 3946, section 3." DEFVAL { 0 } ::=3D { gmplsLabelEntry 11 } gmplsLabelSonetSdhGroupBranch OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Integer32 (0..15) MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The Group Branch Indicator (M) of a SONET or SDH Generalized Label. Zero indicates that this field is non-significant. Only valid if gmplsLabelType is set to gmplsSonetLabel(4) or gmplsSdhLabel(5). This object cannot be modified if gmplsLabelRowStatus is active(1)." REFERENCE "1. Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control, RFC 3946, section 3." DEFVAL { 0 } ::=3D { gmplsLabelEntry 12 } gmplsLabelWavebandId OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Unsigned32 MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The waveband identifier component of a waveband label. Only valid if gmplsLabelType is set to gmplsWavebandLabel(6). This Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 29] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 object cannot be modified if gmplsLabelRowStatus is active(1)." REFERENCE "1. Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description, RFC 3471, section 3.3." DEFVAL { 0 } ::=3D { gmplsLabelEntry 13 } gmplsLabelWavebandStart OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Unsigned32 MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The starting label component of a waveband label. Only valid if gmplsLabelType is set to gmplsWavebandLabel(6). This object cannot be modified if gmplsLabelRowStatus is active(1)." REFERENCE "1. Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description, RFC 3471, section 3.3." DEFVAL { 0 } ::=3D { gmplsLabelEntry 14 } gmplsLabelWavebandEnd OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Unsigned32 MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The end label component of a waveband label. Only valid if gmplsLabelType is set to gmplsWavebandLabel(6). This object cannot be modified if gmplsLabelRowStatus is active(1)." REFERENCE "1. Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description, RFC 3471, section 3.3." DEFVAL { 0 } ::=3D { gmplsLabelEntry 15 } gmplsLabelStorageType OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX StorageType MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "This variable indicates the storage type for this object. The agent MUST ensure that this object's value remains consistent with the storage type of any rows in other tables that contain pointers to this row. In particular, the storage type of this row must be at least as permanent as that of any row that point to it. Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 30] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 Conceptual rows having the value 'permanent' need not allow write-access to any columnar objects in the row." REFERENCE "1. Textual Conventions for SMIv2, STD 58, RFC 2579, section 2." DEFVAL { volatile } ::=3D { gmplsLabelEntry 16 } gmplsLabelRowStatus OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX RowStatus MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "This variable is used to create, modify, and/or delete a row in this table. When a row in this table has a row in the active(1) state, no objects in this row can be modified except the gmplsLabelRowStatus and gmplsLabelStorageType. The gmplsLabelType object does not have a default and must be set before a row can become active. The corresponding label objects (dependent on the value of gmplsLabelType) should also be set unless they happen to need to use the specified default values as follows: gmplsLabelType setting objects to be set -------------------------------------------------------------- gmplsMplsLabel(1) gmplsLabelMplsLabel gmplsPortWavelengthLabel(2) gmplsLabelPortWavelength gmplsFreeformLabel(3) gmplsLabelFreeform gmplsSonetLabel(4) gmplsLabelSonetSdhSignalIndex gmplsLabelSdhVc gmplsLabelSdhVcBranch gmplsLabelSonetSdhBranch gmplsLabelSonetSdhGroupBranch gmplsSdhLabel(5) gmplsLabelSonetSdhSignalIndex gmplsLabelSdhVc gmplsLabelSdhVcBranch gmplsLabelSonetSdhBranch gmplsLabelSonetSdhGroupBranch gmplsWavebandLabel(6) gmplsLabelWavebandId gmplsLabelWavebandStart gmplsLabelWavebandEnd" ::=3D { gmplsLabelEntry 17 } Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 31] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 gmplsLabelGroups OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=3D { gmplsLabelConformance 1 } gmplsLabelCompliances OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=3D { gmplsLabelConformance 2 } gmplsLabelModuleReadOnlyCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Compliance requirement for implementations that only provide read-only support for GMPLS-LABEL-STD-MIB. Such devices can then be monitored but cannot be configured using this MIB module." MODULE -- this module -- The mandatory groups have to be implemented by LSRs claiming -- support for this MIB module. This MIB module is, however, not -- mandatory for a working implementation of a GMPLS LSR with full -- MIB support if the GMPLS labels in use can be represented within -- a 32 bit quantity. MANDATORY-GROUPS { gmplsLabelTableGroup } GROUP gmplsLabelPacketGroup DESCRIPTION "This group extends gmplsLabelTableGroup for implementations that support packet labels. It is optional for implementations that do not support packet labels." GROUP gmplsLabelPortWavelengthGroup DESCRIPTION "This group extends gmplsLabelTableGroup for implementations that support port and wavelength labels. It is optional for implementations that do not support wavelength labels." GROUP gmplsLabelFreeformGroup DESCRIPTION "This group extends gmplsLabelTableGroup for implementations that support freeform labels. It is optional for implementations that do not support freeform labels." GROUP gmplsLabelSonetSdhGroup DESCRIPTION "This group extends gmplsLabelTableGroup for implementations that support SONET or SDH labels. It is optional for implementations Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 32] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 that do not support SONET or SDH labels." GROUP gmplsLabelWavebandGroup DESCRIPTION "This group extends gmplsLabelTableGroup for implementations that support Waveband labels. It is optional for implementations that do not support Waveband labels." OBJECT gmplsLabelType MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "Write access is not required." OBJECT gmplsLabelMplsLabel MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "Write access is not required." OBJECT gmplsLabelPortWavelength MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "Write access is not required." OBJECT gmplsLabelFreeform MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "Write access is not required." OBJECT gmplsLabelSonetSdhSignalIndex MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "Write access is not required." OBJECT gmplsLabelSdhVc MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "Write access is not required." OBJECT gmplsLabelSdhVcBranch MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "Write access is not required." OBJECT gmplsLabelSonetSdhBranch MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "Write access is not required." Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 33] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 OBJECT gmplsLabelSonetSdhGroupBranch MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "Write access is not required." OBJECT gmplsLabelWavebandId MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "Write access is not required." OBJECT gmplsLabelWavebandStart MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "Write access is not required." OBJECT gmplsLabelWavebandEnd MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "Write access is not required." OBJECT gmplsLabelStorageType MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "Write access is not required." OBJECT gmplsLabelRowStatus SYNTAX RowStatus { active(1) } MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "Write access is not required, and active(1) is=20 the only status that needs to be supported." ::=3D { gmplsLabelCompliances 1 } gmplsLabelModuleFullCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Compliance statement for agents that support the complete GMPLS-LABEL-STD-MIB module. The mandatory groups have to be implemented by GMPLS LSRs claiming support for this MIB module. This MIB module is, however, not mandatory for a working implementation of a GMPLS LSR with full MIB support if the GMPLS labels in use can be represented within a 32 bit quantity." MODULE -- this module Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 34] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 MANDATORY-GROUPS { gmplsLabelTableGroup } ::=3D { gmplsLabelCompliances 2 } gmplsLabelTableGroup OBJECT-GROUP OBJECTS { gmplsLabelIndexNext, gmplsLabelType, gmplsLabelStorageType, gmplsLabelRowStatus } STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Necessary, but not sufficient, set of objects to implement label table support. In addition, depending on the type of labels supported, the following other groups defined below are=20 mandatory: gmplsLabelWavebandGroup and/or gmplsLabelPacketGroup and/or gmplsLabelPortWavelengthGroup and/or gmplsLabelFreeformGroup and/or gmplsLabelSonetSdhGroup." ::=3D { gmplsLabelGroups 1 } gmplsLabelPacketGroup OBJECT-GROUP OBJECTS { gmplsLabelMplsLabel } STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Object needed to implement Packet (MPLS) labels." ::=3D { gmplsLabelGroups 2 } gmplsLabelPortWavelengthGroup OBJECT-GROUP OBJECTS { gmplsLabelPortWavelength } STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Object needed to implement Port and Wavelength labels." ::=3D { gmplsLabelGroups 3 } gmplsLabelFreeformGroup OBJECT-GROUP Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 35] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 OBJECTS { gmplsLabelFreeform } STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Object needed to implement Freeform labels." ::=3D { gmplsLabelGroups 4 } gmplsLabelSonetSdhGroup OBJECT-GROUP OBJECTS { gmplsLabelSonetSdhSignalIndex, gmplsLabelSdhVc, gmplsLabelSdhVcBranch, gmplsLabelSonetSdhBranch, gmplsLabelSonetSdhGroupBranch } STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Object needed to implement SONET and SDH labels." ::=3D { gmplsLabelGroups 5 } gmplsLabelWavebandGroup OBJECT-GROUP OBJECTS { gmplsLabelWavebandId, gmplsLabelWavebandStart, gmplsLabelWavebandEnd } STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Object needed to implement Waveband labels." ::=3D { gmplsLabelGroups 6 } END 9. Security Considerations It is clear that the MIB modules described in this document in association with the MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB [RFC3813] are potentially useful for monitoring of GMPLS LSRs. These MIB modules can also be used for configuration of certain objects, and anything that can be configured can be incorrectly configured, with potentially disastrous results. There are a number of management objects defined in these MIB modules with a MAX-ACCESS clause of read-write and/or read-create. Such objects may be considered sensitive or vulnerable in some network Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 36] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 environments. The support for SET operations in a non-secure environment without proper protection can have a negative effect on network operations. These are the tables and objects and their sensitivity/vulnerability: o the gmplsInterfaceTable, gmplsInSegmentTable, gmplsOutSegmentTable and gmplsLabelTable collectively contain objects to provision GMPLS interfaces, LSPs and their associated parameters on a Label Switching Router (LSR). Unauthorized write access to objects in these tables, could result in disruption of traffic on the network. This is especially true if an LSP has already been established. Some of the readable objects in these MIB modules (i.e., objects with a MAX-ACCESS other than not-accessible) may be considered sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments. It is thus important to control even GET and/or NOTIFY access to these objects and possibly to even encrypt the values of these objects when sending them over the network via SNMP. These are the tables and objects and their sensitivity/vulnerability: o the gmplsInterfaceTable, gmplsInSegmentTable, gmplsOutSegmentTable and gmplsLabelTable collectively show the LSP network topology and its capabilities. If an Administrator does not want to reveal this information, then these tables should be considered sensitive/vulnerable. SNMP versions prior to SNMPv3 did not include adequate security. Even if the network itself is secure (for example by using IPSec), even then, there is no control as to who on the secure network is allowed to access and GET/SET (read/change/create/delete) the objects in these MIB modules. It is RECOMMENDED that implementers consider the security features as provided by the SNMPv3 framework (see [RFC3410], section 8), including full support for the SNMPv3 cryptographic mechanisms (for authentication and privacy). Further, deployment of SNMP versions prior to SNMPv3 is NOT RECOMMENDED. Instead, it is RECOMMENDED to deploy SNMPv3 and to enable cryptographic security. It is then a customer/operator responsibility to ensure that the SNMP entity giving access to an instance of this MIB module, is properly configured to give access to the objects only to those principals (users) that have legitimate rights to indeed GET or SET (change/create/delete) them. 10. Acknowledgments Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 37] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 This document is a product of the CCAMP Working Group. This document extends [RFC3813]. The authors would like to express their gratitude to all those who worked on that earlier MIB document. The authors would like to express their thanks to Dan Joyle for his careful review and comments on early versions of the Label Table. Special thanks to Joan Cucchiara and Len Nieman for their help with compilation issues. Tom Petch and Bert Wijnen provided useful input in the final stages of review. Joan Cucchiara provided a helpful and very thorough MIB Doctor review. 11. IANA Considerations -- (Note to RFC-Editor:) -- We request that you assign contiguous RFC numbers to the three GMPLS -- MIB documents. -- The first number to draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib, the second to -- draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib, and the third to -- draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-te-mib. -- (Please remove this note prior to publication.) IANA is requested to root MIB objects in the two MIB modules contained in this document under the mplsStdMIB subtree. In the future, GMPLS related standards track MIB modules should be rooted under the mplsStdMIB (sic) subtree. IANA has been requested to manage that namespace in the SMI Numbers registry [RFC3811]. New assignments can only be made via a Standards Action as specified in [RFC2434]. 11.1. IANA Considerations for GMPLS-LSR-STD-MIB The IANA is requested to assign { mplsStdMIB YYY } to the GMPLS-LSR-STD-MIB module specified in this document, and to record the assignment in the SMI Numbers registry. -- RFC Editor. Please replace YYY above with the OID assigned by IANA -- and remove this note 11.2. IANA Considerations for GMPLS-LABEL-STD-MIB The IANA is requested to assign { mplsStdMIB ZZZ } to the GMPLS-LABEL-STD-MIB module specified in this document, and to record the assignment in the SMI Numbers registry. -- RFC Editor. Please replace ZZZ above with the OID assigned by IANA Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 38] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 -- and remove this note 12. References 12.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirements Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC2578] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Structure of Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC 2578, April 1999. [RFC2579] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Textual Conventions for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2579, April 1999. [RFC2580] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Conformance Statements for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2580, April 1999. [RFC2863] McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group MIB", RFC 2863, June 2000. [RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001. [RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y., Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack Encoding", RFC 3032, January 2001. [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. [RFC3289] Baker, F., Chan, K., and A. Smith, "Management Information Base for the Differentiated Services Architecture", RFC 3289, May 2002. [RFC3443] Agarwal, P. and Akyol, B., "Time To Live (TTL) Processing in Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Networks", RFC 3443, January 2003. [RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, January 2003. Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 39] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 [RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. [RFC3811] Nadeau, T. and J. Cucchiara, "Definition of Textual Conventions and for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Management", RFC 3811, June 2004. [RFC3813] Srinivasan, C., Viswanathan, A., and T. Nadeau, "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switching (LSR) Router Management Information Base (MIB)", RFC 3813, June 2004. [RFC3945] Mannie, E., Ed., "Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004. [RFC3946] Mannie, E. and D. Papadimitriou, "Generalized Multi- Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control", RFC 3946, October 2004. [GMPLSTCMIB] Nadeau, T. and A. Farrel, "Definitions of Textual Conventions for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Management", draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib, work in progress. [GMPLSTEMIB] Nadeau, T. and A. Farrel, "Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Management Information Base", draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-te-mib, work in progress. 12.2. Informative References [RFC3410] Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D., and B. Stewart, "Introduction and Applicability Statements for Internet-Standard Management Framework", RFC 3410, December 2002. [RFC3468] Andersson, L., and Swallow, G., "The Multiprotocol=20 Label Switching (MPLS) Working Group decision on=20 MPLS signaling protocols", RFC 3468, February 2003. [RFC3472] Ashwood-Smith, P. and L. Berger, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Signaling - Constraint-based Routed Label Distribution Protocol Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 40] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 (CR-LDP) Extensions", RFC 3472, January 2003. [RFC3812] Srinivasan, C., Viswanathan, A., and T. Nadeau, "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Management Information Base (MIB)", RFC 3812, June 2004. 13. Contact Information Thomas D. Nadeau Cisco Systems, Inc. 1414 Massachusetts Ave. Boxborough, MA 01719 Email: tnadeau@cisco.com Adrian Farrel Old Dog Consulting Phone: +44-(0)-1978-860944 Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk Cheenu Srinivasan Bloomberg L.P. 731 Lexington Ave. New York, NY 10022 Phone: +1-212-617-3682 Email: cheenu@bloomberg.net Tim Hall Data Connection Ltd. 100 Church Street Enfield, Middlesex, EN2 6BQ, UK Phone: +44 20 8366 1177 Email: tim.hall@dataconnection.com Ed Harrison Data Connection Ltd. 100 Church Street Enfield, Middlesex, EN2 6BQ, UK Phone: +44 20 8366 1177 Email: ed.harrison@dataconnection.com Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 41] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 14. Intellectual Property Considerations The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights 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; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat 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 implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- ipr@ietf.org. 15. Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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. Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 42] --Apple-Mail-19-1045133920 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed --Apple-Mail-19-1045133920-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Fri, 05 May 2006 19:04:27 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v749.3) Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=Apple-Mail-17-1044836305 Message-Id: <5F4D1E84-F3E0-4497-A388-04AC255E2DDB@cisco.com> Cc: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, ccamp@ops.ietf.org, Wijnen Bert <bwijnen@lucent.com>, "Dan ((E-mail)) Romascanu" <dromasca@avaya.com>, Cucchiara Joan <jcucchiara@mindspring.com>, Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net> From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <tnadeau@cisco.com> Subject: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 15:02:40 -0400 To: internet-drafts@ietf.org --Apple-Mail-17-1044836305 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Please update draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-13.txt with draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt and update the CCAMP WG's web page. --Tom --Apple-Mail-17-1044836305 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; x-unix-mode=0644; name="draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt Network Working Group Thomas D. Nadeau, Ed. Internet Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. Proposed Status: Standards Track Expires: September 2006 Adrian Farrel, Ed. Old Dog Consulting April 2006 Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Label Switching Router (LSR) Management Information Base draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 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 This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes managed objects to configure and/or monitor a Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Label Switching Router (LSR). Table of Contents 1. Introduction ..................................... 2 1.1. Migration Strategy ............................. 3 Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 1] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 2. Terminology ...................................... 3 3. The Internet-Standard Management Framework ....... 4 4. Outline .......................................... 5 4.1 MIB Modules ..................................... 5 4.1.1 Summary of the GMPLS-LSR-STD-MIB Module ....... 5 4.1.2 Summary of the GMPLS-LABEL-STD-MIB Module ..... 5 4.2. Configuring Statically Provisioned LSPs ........ 6 5. Bidirectional LSPs ............................... 6 6. Example of LSP Setup ............................. 7 7. GMPLS Label Switching Router MIB Definitions .... 11 8. GMPLS Label MIB Definitions ..................... 22 9. Security Considerations ......................... 37 10. Acknowledgments ................................ 38 11. IANA Considerations ............................ 38 11.1. IANA Considerations for GMPLS-LSR-STD-MIB .... 38 11.2. IANA Considerations for GMPLS-LABEL-STD-MIB .. 39 12. References ..................................... 39 12.1. Normative References ......................... 39 12.2. Informative References ....................... 40 13. Contact Information ............................ 41 14. Intellectual Property Considerations ........... 42 15. Full Copyright Statement ....................... 42 1. Introduction This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes managed objects for modeling a Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) [RFC3945] Label Switching Router (LSR). Comments should be made directly to the CCAMP mailing list at ccamp@ops.ietf.org. 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 BCP 14, RFC 2119, reference [RFC2119]. 1.1. Migration Strategy MPLS LSRs may be modeled and managed using the MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB module [RFC3813]. LSRs may be migrated to be modeled and managed using the MIB modules in this document in order to migrate the LSRs to GMPLS support, or to take advandtage of additional MIB objects defined in these MIB modules that are applicable to MPLS-TE. Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 2] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 The GMPLS LSR MIB module (GMPLS-LSR-STD-MIB) defined in this document extends the MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB module [RFC3813] through a series of sparse augmentations of the MIB tables. The only additions are for support of GMPLS or to support the increased complexity of MPLS and GMPLS systems. In order to migrate from MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB support to GMPLS-LSR-STD-MIB support an implementation needs only to add support for the additional tables and objects defined in GMPLS-LSR-STD-MIB. The gmplsInterfaceSignalingCaps object allows an implementation to use the objects and tables of GMPLS-LSR-STD-MIB without supporting the GMPLS protocols. The GMPLS Label MIB module (GMPLS-LABEL-STD-MIB) also defined in this document allows labels to be configured and examined, and supports more varieties of label as appropriate for GMPLS. Labels may be referenced using a row pointer from objects within the GMPLS-LSR-STD-MIB module. MPLS implementations (MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB) may also reference labels held in the GMPLS-LABEL-STD-MIB module through the various label pointer objects in the MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB module (such as mplsInSegmentLabelPtr), and may do so without implementing the GMPLS-LSR-STD-MIB module. The companion document modeling and managing GMPLS based traffic engineering [GMPLSTEMIB] extends the MPLS-TE-STD-MIB module [RFC3812] with the same intentions. Textual conventions are defined in [GMPLSTCMIB] which extends the=20 set of textual conventions originally defined in [RFC3811]. 2. Terminology This document uses terminology from the document describing the MPLS architecture [RFC3031] and the GMPLS architecture [RFC3945]. A label switched path (LSP) is modeled as a connection consisting of one or more incoming segments (in-segments) and/or one or more outgoing segments (out-segments) at an LSR. The association or interconnection of the in-segments and out-segments is accomplished by using a cross-connect. We use the terminology "connection" and "LSP" interchangeably where the meaning is clear from the context. in-segment This is analogous to a GMPLS label on an interface. out-segment This is analogous to a GMPLS label on an interface. cross-connect This describes the conceptual connection between a set of in-segments and out-segments. Note that either set may be empty; for example, a cross-connect may Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 3] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 connect only out-segments together with no in-segments in the case where an LSP originates on an LSR. The terms 'ingress' and 'head-end' (or 'head') are used in this document to indicate the signaling source of an LSP. This is sometimes also referred to as the 'sender'. The terms 'egress' and 'tail-end' (or 'tail') are used in this document to indicate the signaling destination of an LSP. The term 'upstream' is used in this document to refer to the part of an LSP closer to the ingress than the current point of reference. The term 'downstream' is used in this document to refer to the part of an LSP closer to the egress than the current point of reference. The term 'forward' is used in this document to indicate the direction of data flow from the ingress toward the egress. The term 'reverse' is used in this document to indicate the direction of data flow from the egress toward the ingress. 3. The Internet-Standard Management Framework For a detailed overview of the documents that describe the current Internet-Standard Management Framework, please refer to section 7 of RFC 3410 [RFC3410]. Managed objects are accessed via a virtual information store, termed the Management Information Base or MIB. MIB objects are generally accessed through the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP). Objects in the MIB are defined using the mechanisms defined in the Structure of Management Information (SMI). This memo specifies a MIB module that is compliant to the SMIv2, which is described in STD 58, RFC 2578 [RFC2578], STD 58, RFC 2579 [RFC2579] and STD 58, RFC 2580 [RFC2580]. 4. Outline 4.1 MIB Modules There are two MIB modules defined in this document. The GMPLS-LSR-STD-MIB module contains tables that sparse augment tables defined in the MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB module [RFC3813]. This MIB module is used in conjunction with the MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB module [RFC3813] in systems that support GMPLS. Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 4] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 The GMPLS-LABEL-STD-MIB module contains objects for managing GMPLS labels when they cannot be represented using the textual conventions of the MPLS-TC-STD-MIB module [RFC3811], or when more detailed access to the sub-fields of the labels is required. 4.1.1 Summary of the GMPLS-LSR-STD-MIB Module The MIB tables in the GMPLS-LSR-STD-MIB module are as follows. - The interface configuration table (gmplsInterfaceTable), which sparse augments the mplsInterfaceTable [RFC3813] to enable the GMPLS protocol on MPLS-capable interfaces. - The in-segment (gmplsInSegmentTable) and out-segment (gmplsOutSegmentTable) tables sparse augment mplsInSegmentTable and mplsOutSegmentTable [RFC3813] to enable configuration of GMPLS-specific parameters for LSP segments at an LSR. These tables are described in the subsequent sections. 4.1.2 Summary of the GMPLS-LABEL-STD-MIB Module There is one MIB table in the GMPLS-LABEL-STD-MIB module as follows. - The gmplsLabelTable allows Generalized Labels to be defined and managed in a central location. Generalized Labels can be of variable length and have distinct bit-by-bit interpretations depending upon how they are defined for the specific technology in which they are used. For example, labels used for MPLS packet switching are different in length and content from labels used in TDM timeslot switching. 4.2. Configuring Statically Provisioned LSPs Configuring statically provisioned GMPLS LSPs through an LSR involves the following steps: - Configuring an interface using the MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB module [RFC3813]. - Enabling GMPLS on GMPLS capable interfaces using the GMPLS-LSR-STD-MIB module in this document. - Configuring in and out-segments using the MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB module [RFC3813]. - Configuring GMPLS extensions to the in-segments and out-segments Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 5] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 using the GMPLS-LSR-STD-MIB module in this document. - Setting up the cross-connect table in the MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB module [RFC3813] to associate segments and/or to indicate connection origination and termination. - Optionally setting up labels in the label table in the GMPLS-LABEL-STD-MIB module in this document if the textual convention MplsLabel [RFC3811] is not capable of holding the required label (for example, if the label requires more than 32 bits to encode it), or if the operator wishes to disambiguate GMPLS label types. - Optionally specifying label stack actions in the MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB module [RFC3813]. - Optionally specifying segment traffic parameters in the MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB module [RCF3813]. 5. Bidirectional LSPs The GMPLS-LSR-STD-MIB module supports bidirectional LSPs as required for GMPLS. A single value of mplsXCIndex is shared by all of the segments for the entire bidirectional LSP. This facilitates a simple reference from [RFC3812] and [GMPLSTEMIB], and makes fate-sharing more obvious. It is, however, important that the direction of segments is understood to avoid connecting all in-segments to all out-segments. This is achieved by an object in each segment that indicates the direction of the segment with respect to data flow. A segment that is marked as 'forward' carries data from the 'head' of the LSP to the 'tail'. A segment marked as 'reverse' carries data in the reverse direction. Where an LSP is signaled using a conventional signaling protocol, the 'head' of the LSP is the source of the signaling (also known as the ingress) and the 'tail' is the destination (also known as the egress). For manually configured LSPs an arbitrary decision must be made about which segments are 'forward' and which 'reverse'. For consistency this decision should be made across all LSRs that participate in the LSP by assigning 'head' and 'tail' ends to the LSP. 6. Example of LSP Setup In this section we provide a brief example of using the MIB objects Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 6] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 described in sections 7 and 8 to set up an LSP. While this example is not meant to illustrate every nuance of the MIB modules, it is intended as an aid to understanding some of the key concepts. It is meant to be read after going through the MIB modules themselves. A prerequisite is an understanding of the MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB [RFC3813]. Suppose that one would like to manually create a best-effort, bi-directional LSP. Assume that, in the forward direction, the LSP enters the LSR via MPLS interface A with ifIndex 12 and exits the LSR via MPLS interface B with ifIndex 13. For the reverse direction, we assume the LSP enters via interface B and leaves via interface A (i.e. the forward and reverse directions use the same bi-directional interfaces). Let us also assume that we do not wish to have a label stack beneath the top label on the outgoing labeled packets. The following example illustrates which rows and corresponding objects might be created to accomplish this. We must first create rows in the gmplsLabelTable corresponding to the labels required for each of the forward and reverse direction in- and out-segments. For the purpose of this example the forward and reverse labels on each interface will be the same, hence we need to create just two rows in the gmplsLabelTable - one for each interface. In gmplsLabelTable: { gmplsLabelInterface =3D 12, gmplsLabelIndex =3D 1, gmplsLabelSubindex =3D 0, gmplsLabelType =3D gmplsFreeformLabel(3), gmplsLabelFreeform =3D 0x123456789ABCDEF0 gmplsLabelRowStatus =3D createAndGo(4) } In gmplsLabelTable: { gmplsLabelInterface =3D 13, gmplsLabelIndex =3D 1, gmplsLabelSubindex =3D 0, gmplsLabelType =3D gmplsFreeformLabel(3), gmplsLabelFreeform =3D 0xFEDCBA9876543210 gmplsLabelRowStatus =3D createAndGo(4) } We must next create the appropriate in-segment and out-segment entries. These are done in [RFC3813] using the mplsInSegmentTable and mplsOutSegmentTable. Note that we use a row pointer to the two rows in the gmplsLabelTable rather than specifying the labels explicitly in the in- and out-segment tables. Also note that the row status for Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 7] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 each row is set to createAndWait(5) to allow corresponding entries in the gmplsInSegmentTable and gmplsOutSegmentTable to be created. For the forward direction. In mplsInSegmentTable: { mplsInSegmentIndex =3D 0x00000015 mplsInSegmentLabel =3D 0, -- incoming label in label = table mplsInSegmentNPop =3D 1, mplsInSegmentInterface =3D 12, -- incoming interface -- RowPointer MUST point to the first accsesible column. mplsInSegmentTrafficParamPtr =3D 0.0, mplsInSegmentLabelPtr =3D gmplsLabelTable (12, 1, 0) mplsInSegmentRowStatus =3D createAndWait(5) } In mplsOutSegmentTable: { mplsOutSegmentIndex =3D 0x00000012, mplsOutSegmentInterface =3D 13, -- outgoing interface mplsOutSegmentPushTopLabel =3D true(1), mplsOutSegmentTopLabel =3D 0, -- outgoing label in label = table -- RowPointer MUST point to the first accessible column. mplsOutSegmentTrafficParamPtr =3D 0.0, mplsOutSegmentLabelPtr =3D gmplsLabelTable (13, 1, 0) mplsOutSegmentRowStatus =3D createAndWait(5) } For the reverse direction. In mplsInSegmentTable: { mplsInSegmentIndex =3D 0x00000016 mplsInSegmentLabel =3D 0, -- incoming label in label = table mplsInSegmentNPop =3D 1, mplsInSegmentInterface =3D 13, -- incoming interface -- RowPointer MUST point to the first accessible column. mplsInSegmentTrafficParamPtr =3D 0.0, mplsInSegmentLabelPtr =3D gmplsLabelTable (13, 1, 0) mplsInSegmentRowStatus =3D createAndWait(5) } In mplsOutSegmentTable: Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 8] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 { mplsOutSegmentIndex =3D 0x00000013, mplsOutSegmentInterface =3D 12, -- outgoing interface mplsOutSegmentPushTopLabel =3D true(1), mplsOutSegmentTopLabel =3D 0, -- outgoing label in label = table -- RowPointer MUST point to the first accessible column. mplsOutSegmentTrafficParamPtr =3D 0.0, mplsOutSegmentLabelPtr =3D gmplsLabelTable (12, 1, 0) mplsOutSegmentRowStatus =3D createAndWait(5) } These table entries are extended by entries in gmplsInSegmentTable and gmplsOutSegmentTable. Note that the nature of the 'extends' relationship is a sparse augmentation so that the entry in gmplsInSegmentTable has the same index values as the entry in mplsInSegmentTable. Similarly, the entry in gmplsOutSegmentTable has the same index values as the entry in mplsOutSegmentTable. First for the forward direction: In gmplsInSegmentTable(0x00000015) { gmplsInSegmentDirection =3D forward (1) } In gmplsOutSegmentTable(0x00000012) { gmplsOutSegmentDirection =3D forward (1) } Next for the reverse direction: In gmplsInSegmentTable(0x00000016) { gmplsInSegmentDirection =3D reverse (2) } In gmplsOutSegmentTable(0x00000013) { gmplsOutSegmentDirection =3D reverse (2) } Next, two cross-connect entries are created in the mplsXCTable of the MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB [RFC3813], thereby associating the newly created segments together. Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 9] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 In mplsXCTable: { mplsXCIndex =3D 0x01, mplsXCInSegmentIndex =3D 0x00000015, mplsXCOutSegmentIndex =3D 0x00000012, mplsXCLspId =3D 0x0102 -- unique ID mplsXCLabelStackIndex =3D 0x00, -- only a single outgoing = label mplsXCRowStatus =3D createAndGo(4) } In mplsXCTable: { mplsXCIndex =3D 0x02, mplsXCInSegmentIndex =3D 0x00000016, mplsXCOutSegmentIndex =3D 0x00000013, mplsXCLspId =3D 0x0102 -- unique ID mplsXCLabelStackIndex =3D 0x00, -- only a single outgoing = label mplsXCRowStatus =3D createAndGo(4) } Finally, the in-segments and out-segments are activated. In mplsInSegmentTable(0x00000015): { mplsInSegmentRowStatus =3D active(1) } In mplsInSegmentTable(0x00000016): { mplsInSegmentRowStatus =3D active(1) } In mplsOutSegmentTable(0x00000012): { mplsOutSegmentRowStatus =3D active(1) } In mplsOutSegmentTable(0x00000013): { mplsOutSegmentRowStatus =3D active(1) } 7. GMPLS Label Switching Router MIB Definitions This MIB module makes references to the following documents. [RFC2578], [RFC2579], [RFC2580], [GMPLSTCMIB], [RFC3811], [RFC2863] and [RFC3813]. Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 10] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 GMPLS-LSR-STD-MIB DEFINITIONS ::=3D BEGIN IMPORTS MODULE-IDENTITY, OBJECT-TYPE, Unsigned32, zeroDotZero FROM SNMPv2-SMI -- RFC2578 MODULE-COMPLIANCE, OBJECT-GROUP FROM SNMPv2-CONF -- RFC2580 RowPointer FROM SNMPv2-TC -- RFC2579 GmplsSegmentDirectionTC FROM GMPLS-TC-STD-MIB -- GMPLSTCMIB -- RFC-Editor please resolve the reference above to GMPLSTCMIB -- using the assigned RFC number and remove this note mplsInterfaceIndex, mplsInSegmentIndex, mplsOutSegmentIndex, mplsInterfaceGroup, mplsInSegmentGroup, mplsOutSegmentGroup, mplsXCGroup, mplsPerfGroup, mplsLsrNotificationGroup FROM MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB -- RFC3813 ifGeneralInformationGroup, ifCounterDiscontinuityGroup FROM IF-MIB -- RFC2863 mplsStdMIB FROM MPLS-TC-STD-MIB -- RFC3811 ; gmplsLsrStdMIB MODULE-IDENTITY LAST-UPDATED "200604060001Z" -- 06 April 2006 00:00:01 GMT ORGANIZATION "IETF Common Control And Measurement Plane (CCAMP) Working Group" CONTACT-INFO " Thomas D. Nadeau Cisco Systems, Inc. Email: tnadeau@cisco.com Adrian Farrel Old Dog Consulting Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk Comments about this document should be emailed direct to the CCAMP working group mailing list at ccamp@ops.ietf.org" DESCRIPTION "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This version of this MIB module is part of RFC XXX; see the RFC itself for full legal notices. -- RFC Editor. Please replace XXX above with the correct RFC number and -- remove this note. This MIB module contains managed object definitions for the Generalized Multiprotocol (GMPLS) Label Switching Router as defined in: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 11] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 Architecture, Mannie et al., RFC 3945, October 2004." REVISION "200604060001Z" -- 06 April 2006 00:00:01 GMT DESCRIPTION "Initial version issued as part of RFC XXX." ::=3D { mplsStdMIB XXX } -- RFC Editor. Please replace XXX above with the correct RFC number and -- remove this note. -- RFC Editor. Please replace YYY above with the OID assigned by IANA -- and remove this note -- no notifications are currently defined. gmplsLsrObjects OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=3D { gmplsLsrStdMIB 1 } gmplsLsrConformance OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=3D { gmplsLsrStdMIB 2 } gmplsInterfaceTable OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF GmplsInterfaceEntry MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "This table specifies per-interface GMPLS capability and associated information. It extends the information in mplsInterfaceTable of the MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB through a sparse augmentation relationship." REFERENCE "1. Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switching (LSR) Router Management Information Base (MIB), RFC 3813." ::=3D { gmplsLsrObjects 1 } gmplsInterfaceEntry OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX GmplsInterfaceEntry MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "A conceptual row in this table is created automatically by an LSR for each interface that is both capable of supporting GMPLS and that is configured to support GMPLS. Note that support of GMPLS is not limited to control plane signaling, but may include data-plane only function configured through SNMP SET commands performed on this MIB module. A conceptual row in this table may also be created via SNMP SET commands or automatically by the LSR to supplement a conceptual row in the mplsInterfaceTable where the interface is not capable of GMPLS but where the other objects carried Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 12] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 in this row provide useful additional information for an MPLS interface. A conceptual row in this table will exist if and only if a corresponding entry in mplsInterfaceTable exists, and a corresponding entry in ifTable exists with ifType =3D mpls(166). If the associated entry in ifTable is operationally disabled (thus removing the GMPLS capabilities on the interface) or the entry in mplsInterfaceTable is deleted, the corresponding entry in this table MUST be deleted shortly thereafter. The indexes are the same as for mplsInterfaceTable. Thus, the entry with index 0 represents the per-platform label space and contains parameters that apply to all interfaces that participate in the per-platform label space." REFERENCE "1. Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switching (LSR) Router Management Information Base (MIB), RFC 3813." INDEX { mplsInterfaceIndex } ::=3D { gmplsInterfaceTable 1 } GmplsInterfaceEntry ::=3D SEQUENCE { gmplsInterfaceSignalingCaps BITS, gmplsInterfaceRsvpHelloPeriod Unsigned32 } gmplsInterfaceSignalingCaps OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX BITS { unknown (0), rsvpGmpls (1), crldpGmpls (2), -- note the use of CR-LDP is deprecated otherGmpls (3) } MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Defines the signaling capabilities on this interface. Multiple bits may legitimately be set at once, but if 'unknown' is set then no other bit may be set. Setting no bits implies that GMPLS signaling cannot be performed on this interface and all LSPs must be manually provisioned or that this table entry is only present to supplement an entry in the mplsInterfaceTable by providing the information carried in other objects in this row." REFERENCE "1. Generalized MPLS Signaling - CR-LDP Extensions, RFC 3472. 2. The Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Working Group decision on MPLS signaling protocols, RFC 3468. 3. Generalized MPLS Signaling - RSVP-TE Extensions, RFC 3473. Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 13] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 " DEFVAL { { rsvpGmpls } } ::=3D { gmplsInterfaceEntry 1 } gmplsInterfaceRsvpHelloPeriod OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Unsigned32 UNITS "milliseconds" MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Period, in milliseconds, between sending RSVP Hello messages on this interface. A value of 0 indicates that no Hello messages should be sent on this interface. This object is only valid if gmplsInterfaceSignalingCaps has no bits set or includes the rsvpGmpls bit." REFERENCE "1. RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels, RFC 3209, section 5. 2. Generalized MPLS Signaling - RSVP-TE Extensions, RFC 3473, section 9.3." DEFVAL { 3000 } ::=3D { gmplsInterfaceEntry 2 } gmplsInSegmentTable OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF GmplsInSegmentEntry MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "This table sparse augments the mplsInSegmentTable of the MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB to provide GMPLS-specific information about incoming segments to an LSR." REFERENCE "1. Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switching (LSR) Router Management Information Base (MIB), RFC 3813." ::=3D { gmplsLsrObjects 2 } gmplsInSegmentEntry OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX GmplsInSegmentEntry MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "An entry in this table extends the representation of an incoming segment represented by an entry in mplsInSegmentTable in the MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB through a sparse augmentation. An entry can be created by a network administrator via SNMP SET commands, or in response to signaling protocol events. Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 14] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 Note that the storage type for this entry is given by the value of mplsInSegmentStorageType in the corresponding entry of the mplsInSegmentTable." REFERENCE "1. Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switching (LSR) Router Management Information Base (MIB), RFC 3813." INDEX { mplsInSegmentIndex } ::=3D { gmplsInSegmentTable 1 } GmplsInSegmentEntry ::=3D SEQUENCE { gmplsInSegmentDirection GmplsSegmentDirectionTC, gmplsInSegmentExtraParamsPtr RowPointer } gmplsInSegmentDirection OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX GmplsSegmentDirectionTC MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "This object indicates the direction of data flow on this segment. This object cannot be modified if mplsInSegmentRowStatus for the corresponding entry in the mplsInSegmentTable is active(1)." REFERENCE "1. Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switching (LSR) Router Management Information Base (MIB), RFC 3813." DEFVAL { forward } ::=3D { gmplsInSegmentEntry 1 } gmplsInSegmentExtraParamsPtr OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX RowPointer MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Some Tunnels will run over transports that can usefully support technology-specific additional parameters (for example, SONET resource usage). Such can be supplied from an external table and referenced from here. A value of zeroDotzero in this attribute indicates that there is no such additional information." DEFVAL { zeroDotZero } ::=3D { gmplsInSegmentEntry 2 } gmplsOutSegmentTable OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF GmplsOutSegmentEntry MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 15] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 "This table sparse augments the mplsOutSegmentTable of the MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB to provide GMPLS-specific information about outgoing segments from an LSR." REFERENCE "1. Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switching (LSR) Router Management Information Base (MIB), RFC 3813." ::=3D { gmplsLsrObjects 3 } gmplsOutSegmentEntry OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX GmplsOutSegmentEntry MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "An entry in this table extends the representation of an outgoing segment represented by an entry in mplsOutSegmentTable of the MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB through a sparse augmentation. An entry can be created by a network administrator via SNMP SET commands, or in response to signaling protocol events. Note that the storage type for this entry is given by the value of mplsOutSegmentStorageType in the corresponding entry of the mplsOutSegmentTable." REFERENCE "1. Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switching (LSR) Router Management Information Base (MIB), RFC 3813." INDEX { mplsOutSegmentIndex } ::=3D { gmplsOutSegmentTable 1 } GmplsOutSegmentEntry ::=3D SEQUENCE { gmplsOutSegmentDirection GmplsSegmentDirectionTC, gmplsOutSegmentTTLDecrement Unsigned32, gmplsOutSegmentExtraParamsPtr RowPointer } gmplsOutSegmentDirection OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX GmplsSegmentDirectionTC MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "This object indicates the direction of data flow on this segment. This object cannot be modified if mplsOutSegmentRowStatus for the corresponding entry in the mplsOutSegmentTable is active(1)." REFERENCE "1. Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switching (LSR) Router Management Information Base (MIB), RFC 3813." DEFVAL { forward } ::=3D { gmplsOutSegmentEntry 1 } Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 16] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 gmplsOutSegmentTTLDecrement OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Unsigned32 MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "This object indicates the amount by which to decrement the TTL of any payload packets forwarded on this segment if per-hop decrementing is being done. A value of zero indicates that no decrement should be made or that per-hop decrementing is not in use. See the gmplsTunnelTTLDecrement object in the gmplsTunnelTable of GMPLS-TE-STD-MIB for a value by which to decrement the TTL for the whole of a tunnel. This object cannot be modified if mplsOutSegmentRowStatus for the associated entry in the mplsOutSegmentTable is active(1)." REFERENCE "1. Time To Live (TTL) Processing in Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Networks, RFC 3443. 2. Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Management Information Base, RFC XXX." -- RFC Editor. Please insert the correct RFC number and remove this note DEFVAL { 0 } ::=3D { gmplsOutSegmentEntry 2 } gmplsOutSegmentExtraParamsPtr OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX RowPointer MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Some Tunnels will run over transports that can usefully support technology-specific additional parameters (for example, SONET resource usage). Such can be supplied from an external table and referenced from here. A value of zeroDotzero in this attribute indicates that there is no such additional information." DEFVAL { zeroDotZero } ::=3D { gmplsOutSegmentEntry 3 } gmplsLsrGroups OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=3D { gmplsLsrConformance 1 } gmplsLsrCompliances OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=3D { gmplsLsrConformance 2 } Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 17] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 -- Compliance requirement for fully compliant implementations. gmplsLsrModuleFullCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Compliance statement for agents that provide full support for GMPLS-LSR-STD-MIB. The mandatory group has to be implemented by all LSRs that originate, terminate or act as transit for TE-LSPs/tunnels. In addition, depending on the type of tunnels supported, other groups become mandatory as explained below." MODULE IF-MIB -- The Interfaces Group MIB, RFC 2863. MANDATORY-GROUPS { ifGeneralInformationGroup, ifCounterDiscontinuityGroup } MODULE MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB -- The MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB, RFC3813 MANDATORY-GROUPS { mplsInterfaceGroup, mplsInSegmentGroup, mplsOutSegmentGroup, mplsXCGroup, mplsPerfGroup, mplsLsrNotificationGroup } MODULE -- this module MANDATORY-GROUPS { gmplsInterfaceGroup, gmplsInSegmentGroup, gmplsOutSegmentGroup } OBJECT gmplsInSegmentDirection SYNTAX GmplsSegmentDirectionTC MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "The only valid value for unidrectional LSPs is forward(1)." OBJECT gmplsOutSegmentDirection SYNTAX GmplsSegmentDirectionTC Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 18] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "The only valid value for unidrectional LSPs is forward(1)." OBJECT gmplsOutSegmentTTLDecrement MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "Write access is not required." OBJECT gmplsInSegmentExtraParamsPtr MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "Write access is not required." OBJECT gmplsOutSegmentExtraParamsPtr MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "Write access is not required." ::=3D { gmplsLsrCompliances 1 } -- Compliance requirement for implementations that provide read-only -- access. gmplsLsrModuleReadOnlyCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Compliance requirement for implementations that only provide read-only support for GMPLS-LSR-STD-MIB. Such devices can then be monitored but cannot be configured using this MIB module." MODULE IF-MIB -- The interfaces Group MIB, RFC 2863 MANDATORY-GROUPS { ifGeneralInformationGroup, ifCounterDiscontinuityGroup } MODULE MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB MANDATORY-GROUPS { mplsInterfaceGroup, mplsInSegmentGroup, mplsOutSegmentGroup, mplsXCGroup, mplsPerfGroup } Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 19] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 MODULE -- this module MANDATORY-GROUPS { gmplsInterfaceGroup, gmplsInSegmentGroup, gmplsOutSegmentGroup } OBJECT gmplsInterfaceSignalingCaps MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "Write access is not required." OBJECT gmplsInterfaceRsvpHelloPeriod MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "Write access is not required." OBJECT gmplsInSegmentDirection SYNTAX GmplsSegmentDirectionTC MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "The only valid value for unidrectional LSPs is forward(1)." OBJECT gmplsInSegmentExtraParamsPtr MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "Write access is not required." OBJECT gmplsOutSegmentDirection MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "The only valid value for unidrectional LSPs is forward(1)." OBJECT gmplsOutSegmentTTLDecrement MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "Write access is not required." OBJECT gmplsOutSegmentExtraParamsPtr MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "Write access is not required." ::=3D { gmplsLsrCompliances 2 } gmplsInterfaceGroup OBJECT-GROUP OBJECTS { Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 20] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 gmplsInterfaceSignalingCaps, gmplsInterfaceRsvpHelloPeriod } STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Collection of objects which provide additional=20 information for an MPLS interface and are needed=20 for GMPLS interface configuration and performance=20 information." ::=3D { gmplsLsrGroups 1 } gmplsInSegmentGroup OBJECT-GROUP OBJECTS { gmplsInSegmentDirection, gmplsInSegmentExtraParamsPtr } STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Collection of objects which provide additional=20 information for an MPLS in-segment and are needed=20 for GMPLS in-segment configuration and performance=20 information." ::=3D { gmplsLsrGroups 2 } gmplsOutSegmentGroup OBJECT-GROUP OBJECTS { gmplsOutSegmentDirection, gmplsOutSegmentTTLDecrement, gmplsOutSegmentExtraParamsPtr } STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Collection of objects which provide additional=20 information for an MPLS out-segment and are needed=20 for GMPLS out-segment configuration and performance=20 information." ::=3D { gmplsLsrGroups 3 } END 8. GMPLS Label MIB Definitions This MIB module makes references to the following documents. [RFC2578], [RFC2579], [RFC2580], [GMPLSTCMIB], [RFC3811], [RFC2863], [RFC3289], [RFC3813], and [RFC3471]. =20 GMPLS-LABEL-STD-MIB DEFINITIONS ::=3D BEGIN Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 21] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 IMPORTS MODULE-IDENTITY, OBJECT-TYPE, Unsigned32, Integer32 FROM SNMPv2-SMI -- RFC2578 MODULE-COMPLIANCE, OBJECT-GROUP FROM SNMPv2-CONF -- RFC2580 RowStatus, StorageType FROM SNMPv2-TC -- RFC2579 InterfaceIndexOrZero FROM IF-MIB -- RFC2863 IndexIntegerNextFree FROM DIFFSERV-MIB -- RFC3289 MplsLabel, mplsStdMIB FROM MPLS-TC-STD-MIB -- RFC3811 GmplsLabelTypeTC, GmplsFreeformLabelTC FROM GMPLS-TC-STD-MIB -- GMPLSTCMIB -- RFC-Editor. Please resolve the reference above to GMPLSTCMIB=20 -- to use the assigned RFC number and remove this note ; gmplsLabelStdMIB MODULE-IDENTITY LAST-UPDATED "200604060001Z" -- 06 April 2006 00:00:01 GMT ORGANIZATION "IETF Common Control And Measurement Plane (CCAMP) Working Group" CONTACT-INFO " Thomas D. Nadeau Cisco Systems, Inc. Email: tnadeau@cisco.com Adrian Farrel Old Dog Consulting Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk Comments about this document should be emailed direct to the CCAMP working group mailing list at ccamp@ops.ietf.org" DESCRIPTION "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This version of this MIB module is part of RFC XXX; see the RFC itself for full legal notices. -- RFC Editor. Please replace XXX above with the correct RFC number and -- remove this note. This MIB module contains managed object definitions for labels within GMPLS systems as defined in: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description, Berger, L. (Editor), RFC 3471, Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 22] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 January 2003." REVISION "200604060001Z" -- 06 April 2006 00:00:01 GMT DESCRIPTION "Initial version issued as part of RFC XXX." ::=3D { mplsStdMIB XXX } -- RFC Editor. Please replace XXX above with the correct RFC number and -- remove this note. -- RFC Editor. Please replace ZZZ above with the OID assigned by IANA -- and remove this note -- no notifications are currently defined. gmplsLabelObjects OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=3D { gmplsLabelStdMIB 1 = } gmplsLabelConformance OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=3D { gmplsLabelStdMIB 2 = } gmplsLabelIndexNext OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX IndexIntegerNextFree MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "This object contains an unused value for gmplsLabelIndex, or a zero to indicate that no unused value exists or is available. A management application wishing to create a row in the gmplsLabelTable may read this object and then attempt to create a row in the table. If row creation fails (because another application has already created a row with the supplied index) the management application should read this object again to get a new index value. When a row is created in the gmplsLabelTable with the gmplsLabelIndex value held by this object, an implementation MUST change the value in this object." ::=3D { gmplsLabelObjects 1 } gmplsLabelTable OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF GmplsLabelEntry MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Table of GMPLS Labels. This table allows the representation of the more complex label forms required for GMPLS which cannot be held within the textual convention MplsLabel. That is labels that cannot be encoded within 32 bits. It is, nevertheless also capable of holding 32 bit labels or regular MPLS labels if Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 23] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 desired. Each entry in this table represents an individual GMPLS label value. Labels in the tables in other MIB modules may be referred to using a row pointer into this table. The indexing of this=20 table provides for arbitrary indexing and also for=20 concatenation of labels. For an example of label concatenation see RFC3945 section 7.1. In essence, a GMPLS label may be composite in order to identify a set of resources in the data plane. Practical examples are timeslots and wavelength sets (which are not contiguous like wavebands). The indexing mechanism allows multiple entries in this table to be seen as a sequence of labels that should be concatenated. Ordering is potentially very sensitive for concatenation." REFERENCE "1. Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Architecture, RFC 3945, section 7.1," ::=3D { gmplsLabelObjects 2 } gmplsLabelEntry OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX GmplsLabelEntry MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "An entry in this table represents a single label value. There are three indexes into the table. - The interface index may be helpful to distinguish which labels are in use on which interfaces or to handle cases where there are a very large number of labels in use in the system. When label representation is desired to apply to the whole system or when it is not important to distinguish labels by their interfaces, this index MAY be set to zero. - The label index provides a way of identifying the label. - The label sub-index is only used for concatenated labels. It identifies each component label. When non-concatenated labels are used, this index SHOULD be set to zero. A storage type object is supplied to control the storage type for each entry, but implementations should note that the storage type of conceptual rows in other tables that include row pointers to an entry in this table SHOULD dictate the storage type of the rows in this table where the row in the other table is more persistent." INDEX { Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 24] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 gmplsLabelInterface, gmplsLabelIndex, gmplsLabelSubindex } ::=3D { gmplsLabelTable 1 } GmplsLabelEntry ::=3D SEQUENCE { gmplsLabelInterface InterfaceIndexOrZero, gmplsLabelIndex Unsigned32, gmplsLabelSubindex Unsigned32, gmplsLabelType GmplsLabelTypeTC, gmplsLabelMplsLabel MplsLabel, gmplsLabelPortWavelength Unsigned32, gmplsLabelFreeform GmplsFreeformLabelTC, gmplsLabelSonetSdhSignalIndex Integer32, gmplsLabelSdhVc Integer32, gmplsLabelSdhVcBranch Integer32, gmplsLabelSonetSdhBranch Integer32, gmplsLabelSonetSdhGroupBranch Integer32, gmplsLabelWavebandId Unsigned32, gmplsLabelWavebandStart Unsigned32, gmplsLabelWavebandEnd Unsigned32, gmplsLabelStorageType StorageType, gmplsLabelRowStatus RowStatus } gmplsLabelInterface OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX InterfaceIndexOrZero MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The interface on which this label is used. If this object is set to zero, the label MUST have applicability across the whole system and is not limited to a single interface." ::=3D { gmplsLabelEntry 1 } gmplsLabelIndex OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..4294967295) MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "An arbitrary index into the table to identify a label. Note that implementations that are representing 32 bit labels within this table MAY choose to align this index with the value of the label and this may result in the use of the value zero since it represents a valid label value. Such implementation=20 should be aware of the implications of sparsely populated=20 tables. Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 25] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 A management application may read the gmplsLabelIndexNext object to find a suitable value for this object." ::=3D { gmplsLabelEntry 2 } gmplsLabelSubindex OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..4294967295) MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "In conjunction with gmplsLabelInterface and gmplsLabelIndex, this object uniquely identifies this row. This sub-index allows a single GMPLS label to be defined as a concatenation of labels. This is particularly useful in TDM. The ordering of sub-labels is strict with the sub-label with lowest gmplsLabelSubindex appearing first. Note that all sub-labels of a single GMPLS label must share the same gmplsLabelInterface and gmplsLabelIndex values. For labels that are not composed of concatenated sub-labels, this value SHOULD be set to zero." ::=3D { gmplsLabelEntry 3 } gmplsLabelType OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX GmplsLabelTypeTC MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Identifies the type of this label. Note that this object does not determine whether MPLS or GMPLS signaling is in use: a value of gmplsMplsLabel (1) denotes that an MPLS packet label is present in the gmplsLabelMplsLabel object and encoded using the MplsLabel textual convention (may be a 20-bit MPLS label, a 10- or 23-bit Frame Relay label, or an ATM label), but does not describe whether this is signaled using MPLS or GMPLS. The value of this object helps determine which of the following objects are valid. This object cannot be modified if gmplsLabelRowStatus is active(1)." REFERENCE "1. Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description, RFC 3471, section 3." ::=3D { gmplsLabelEntry 4 } gmplsLabelMplsLabel OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX MplsLabel MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 26] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 DESCRIPTION "The value of an MPLS label (that is a packet label) if this table is used to store it. This may be used in MPLS systems even though the label values can be adequately stored in the MPLS MIB modules (MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB and MPLS-TE-STD-MIB). Further, in mixed MPLS and GMPLS systems it may be advantageous to store all labels in a single label table. Lastly, in GMPLS systems where packet labels are used (that is in systems that use GMPLS signaling and GMPLS labels for packet switching) it may be desirable to use this table. This object is only valid if gmplsLabelType is set to gmplsMplsLabel (1). This object cannot be modified if gmplsLabelRowStatus is active(1)." REFERENCE "1. MPLS Label Stack Encoding, RFC 3032." DEFVAL { 0 } ::=3D { gmplsLabelEntry 5 } gmplsLabelPortWavelength OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Unsigned32 MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The value of a Port or Wavelength Label when carried as a Generalized Label. Only valid if gmplsLabelType is set to gmplsPortWavelengthLabel(2). This object cannot be modified if gmplsLabelRowStatus is active(1)." REFERENCE "1. Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description, RFC 3471, section 3.2.1.1." DEFVAL { 0 } ::=3D { gmplsLabelEntry 6 } gmplsLabelFreeform OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX GmplsFreeformLabelTC MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The value of a freeform Generalized Label that does not conform to one of the standardized label encoding or that an implementation chooses to represent as an octet string without further decoding. Only valid if gmplsLabelType is set to gmplsFreeformLabel(3). This object cannot be modified if gmplsLabelRowStatus is active(1)." REFERENCE "1. Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 27] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 Functional Description, RFC 3471, section 3.2." DEFVAL { '00'h } ::=3D { gmplsLabelEntry 7 } gmplsLabelSonetSdhSignalIndex OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Integer32 (0..4095) MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The Signal Index value (S) of a SONET or SDH Generalized Label. Zero indicates that this field is not significant. Only valid if gmplsLabelType is set to gmplsSonetLabel(4) or gmplsSdhLabel(5). This object cannot be modified if gmplsLabelRowStatus is active(1)." REFERENCE "1. Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control, RFC 3946, section 3." DEFVAL { 0 } ::=3D { gmplsLabelEntry 8 } gmplsLabelSdhVc OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Integer32 (0..15) MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The VC Indicator (U) of an SDH Generalized Label. Zero indicates that this field is non-significant. Only valid if gmplsLabelType is set to gmplsSdhLabel(5). This object cannot be modified if gmplsLabelRowStatus is active(1)." REFERENCE "1. Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control, RFC 3946, section 3." DEFVAL { 0 } ::=3D { gmplsLabelEntry 9 } gmplsLabelSdhVcBranch OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Integer32 (0..15) MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The VC Branch Indicator (K) of an SDH Generalized Label. Zero indicates that this field is non-significant. Only valid if gmplsLabelType is set to gmplsSdhLabel(5). This object cannot be modified if gmplsLabelRowStatus is active(1)." REFERENCE Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 28] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 "1. Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control, RFC 3946, section 3." DEFVAL { 0 } ::=3D { gmplsLabelEntry 10 } gmplsLabelSonetSdhBranch OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Integer32 (0..15) MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The Branch Indicator (L) of a SONET or SDH Generalized Label. Zero indicates that this field is non-significant. Only valid gmplsLabelType is set to gmplsSonetLabel(4) or gmplsSdhLabel(5). This object cannot be modified if gmplsLabelRowStatus is active(1)." REFERENCE "1. Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control, RFC 3946, section 3." DEFVAL { 0 } ::=3D { gmplsLabelEntry 11 } gmplsLabelSonetSdhGroupBranch OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Integer32 (0..15) MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The Group Branch Indicator (M) of a SONET or SDH Generalized Label. Zero indicates that this field is non-significant. Only valid if gmplsLabelType is set to gmplsSonetLabel(4) or gmplsSdhLabel(5). This object cannot be modified if gmplsLabelRowStatus is active(1)." REFERENCE "1. Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control, RFC 3946, section 3." DEFVAL { 0 } ::=3D { gmplsLabelEntry 12 } gmplsLabelWavebandId OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Unsigned32 MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The waveband identifier component of a waveband label. Only valid if gmplsLabelType is set to gmplsWavebandLabel(6). This Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 29] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 object cannot be modified if gmplsLabelRowStatus is active(1)." REFERENCE "1. Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description, RFC 3471, section 3.3." DEFVAL { 0 } ::=3D { gmplsLabelEntry 13 } gmplsLabelWavebandStart OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Unsigned32 MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The starting label component of a waveband label. Only valid if gmplsLabelType is set to gmplsWavebandLabel(6). This object cannot be modified if gmplsLabelRowStatus is active(1)." REFERENCE "1. Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description, RFC 3471, section 3.3." DEFVAL { 0 } ::=3D { gmplsLabelEntry 14 } gmplsLabelWavebandEnd OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Unsigned32 MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The end label component of a waveband label. Only valid if gmplsLabelType is set to gmplsWavebandLabel(6). This object cannot be modified if gmplsLabelRowStatus is active(1)." REFERENCE "1. Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description, RFC 3471, section 3.3." DEFVAL { 0 } ::=3D { gmplsLabelEntry 15 } gmplsLabelStorageType OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX StorageType MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "This variable indicates the storage type for this object. The agent MUST ensure that this object's value remains consistent with the storage type of any rows in other tables that contain pointers to this row. In particular, the storage type of this row must be at least as permanent as that of any row that point to it. Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 30] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 Conceptual rows having the value 'permanent' need not allow write-access to any columnar objects in the row." REFERENCE "1. Textual Conventions for SMIv2, STD 58, RFC 2579, section 2." DEFVAL { volatile } ::=3D { gmplsLabelEntry 16 } gmplsLabelRowStatus OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX RowStatus MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "This variable is used to create, modify, and/or delete a row in this table. When a row in this table has a row in the active(1) state, no objects in this row can be modified except the gmplsLabelRowStatus and gmplsLabelStorageType. The gmplsLabelType object does not have a default and must be set before a row can become active. The corresponding label objects (dependent on the value of gmplsLabelType) should also be set unless they happen to need to use the specified default values as follows: gmplsLabelType setting objects to be set -------------------------------------------------------------- gmplsMplsLabel(1) gmplsLabelMplsLabel gmplsPortWavelengthLabel(2) gmplsLabelPortWavelength gmplsFreeformLabel(3) gmplsLabelFreeform gmplsSonetLabel(4) gmplsLabelSonetSdhSignalIndex gmplsLabelSdhVc gmplsLabelSdhVcBranch gmplsLabelSonetSdhBranch gmplsLabelSonetSdhGroupBranch gmplsSdhLabel(5) gmplsLabelSonetSdhSignalIndex gmplsLabelSdhVc gmplsLabelSdhVcBranch gmplsLabelSonetSdhBranch gmplsLabelSonetSdhGroupBranch gmplsWavebandLabel(6) gmplsLabelWavebandId gmplsLabelWavebandStart gmplsLabelWavebandEnd" ::=3D { gmplsLabelEntry 17 } Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 31] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 gmplsLabelGroups OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=3D { gmplsLabelConformance 1 } gmplsLabelCompliances OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=3D { gmplsLabelConformance 2 } gmplsLabelModuleReadOnlyCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Compliance requirement for implementations that only provide read-only support for GMPLS-LABEL-STD-MIB. Such devices can then be monitored but cannot be configured using this MIB module." MODULE -- this module -- The mandatory groups have to be implemented by LSRs claiming -- support for this MIB module. This MIB module is, however, not -- mandatory for a working implementation of a GMPLS LSR with full -- MIB support if the GMPLS labels in use can be represented within -- a 32 bit quantity. MANDATORY-GROUPS { gmplsLabelTableGroup } GROUP gmplsLabelPacketGroup DESCRIPTION "This group extends gmplsLabelTableGroup for implementations that support packet labels. It is optional for implementations that do not support packet labels." GROUP gmplsLabelPortWavelengthGroup DESCRIPTION "This group extends gmplsLabelTableGroup for implementations that support port and wavelength labels. It is optional for implementations that do not support wavelength labels." GROUP gmplsLabelFreeformGroup DESCRIPTION "This group extends gmplsLabelTableGroup for implementations that support freeform labels. It is optional for implementations that do not support freeform labels." GROUP gmplsLabelSonetSdhGroup DESCRIPTION "This group extends gmplsLabelTableGroup for implementations that support SONET or SDH labels. It is optional for implementations Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 32] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 that do not support SONET or SDH labels." GROUP gmplsLabelWavebandGroup DESCRIPTION "This group extends gmplsLabelTableGroup for implementations that support Waveband labels. It is optional for implementations that do not support Waveband labels." OBJECT gmplsLabelType MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "Write access is not required." OBJECT gmplsLabelMplsLabel MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "Write access is not required." OBJECT gmplsLabelPortWavelength MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "Write access is not required." OBJECT gmplsLabelFreeform MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "Write access is not required." OBJECT gmplsLabelSonetSdhSignalIndex MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "Write access is not required." OBJECT gmplsLabelSdhVc MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "Write access is not required." OBJECT gmplsLabelSdhVcBranch MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "Write access is not required." OBJECT gmplsLabelSonetSdhBranch MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "Write access is not required." Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 33] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 OBJECT gmplsLabelSonetSdhGroupBranch MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "Write access is not required." OBJECT gmplsLabelWavebandId MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "Write access is not required." OBJECT gmplsLabelWavebandStart MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "Write access is not required." OBJECT gmplsLabelWavebandEnd MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "Write access is not required." OBJECT gmplsLabelStorageType MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "Write access is not required." OBJECT gmplsLabelRowStatus SYNTAX RowStatus { active(1) } MIN-ACCESS read-only DESCRIPTION "Write access is not required, and active(1) is=20 the only status that needs to be supported." ::=3D { gmplsLabelCompliances 1 } gmplsLabelModuleFullCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Compliance statement for agents that support the complete GMPLS-LABEL-STD-MIB module. The mandatory groups have to be implemented by GMPLS LSRs claiming support for this MIB module. This MIB module is, however, not mandatory for a working implementation of a GMPLS LSR with full MIB support if the GMPLS labels in use can be represented within a 32 bit quantity." MODULE -- this module Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 34] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 MANDATORY-GROUPS { gmplsLabelTableGroup } ::=3D { gmplsLabelCompliances 2 } gmplsLabelTableGroup OBJECT-GROUP OBJECTS { gmplsLabelIndexNext, gmplsLabelType, gmplsLabelStorageType, gmplsLabelRowStatus } STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Necessary, but not sufficient, set of objects to implement label table support. In addition, depending on the type of labels supported, the following other groups defined below are=20 mandatory: gmplsLabelWavebandGroup and/or gmplsLabelPacketGroup and/or gmplsLabelPortWavelengthGroup and/or gmplsLabelFreeformGroup and/or gmplsLabelSonetSdhGroup." ::=3D { gmplsLabelGroups 1 } gmplsLabelPacketGroup OBJECT-GROUP OBJECTS { gmplsLabelMplsLabel } STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Object needed to implement Packet (MPLS) labels." ::=3D { gmplsLabelGroups 2 } gmplsLabelPortWavelengthGroup OBJECT-GROUP OBJECTS { gmplsLabelPortWavelength } STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Object needed to implement Port and Wavelength labels." ::=3D { gmplsLabelGroups 3 } gmplsLabelFreeformGroup OBJECT-GROUP Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 35] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 OBJECTS { gmplsLabelFreeform } STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Object needed to implement Freeform labels." ::=3D { gmplsLabelGroups 4 } gmplsLabelSonetSdhGroup OBJECT-GROUP OBJECTS { gmplsLabelSonetSdhSignalIndex, gmplsLabelSdhVc, gmplsLabelSdhVcBranch, gmplsLabelSonetSdhBranch, gmplsLabelSonetSdhGroupBranch } STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Object needed to implement SONET and SDH labels." ::=3D { gmplsLabelGroups 5 } gmplsLabelWavebandGroup OBJECT-GROUP OBJECTS { gmplsLabelWavebandId, gmplsLabelWavebandStart, gmplsLabelWavebandEnd } STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Object needed to implement Waveband labels." ::=3D { gmplsLabelGroups 6 } END 9. Security Considerations It is clear that the MIB modules described in this document in association with the MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB [RFC3813] are potentially useful for monitoring of GMPLS LSRs. These MIB modules can also be used for configuration of certain objects, and anything that can be configured can be incorrectly configured, with potentially disastrous results. There are a number of management objects defined in these MIB modules with a MAX-ACCESS clause of read-write and/or read-create. Such objects may be considered sensitive or vulnerable in some network Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 36] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 environments. The support for SET operations in a non-secure environment without proper protection can have a negative effect on network operations. These are the tables and objects and their sensitivity/vulnerability: o the gmplsInterfaceTable, gmplsInSegmentTable, gmplsOutSegmentTable and gmplsLabelTable collectively contain objects to provision GMPLS interfaces, LSPs and their associated parameters on a Label Switching Router (LSR). Unauthorized write access to objects in these tables, could result in disruption of traffic on the network. This is especially true if an LSP has already been established. Some of the readable objects in these MIB modules (i.e., objects with a MAX-ACCESS other than not-accessible) may be considered sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments. It is thus important to control even GET and/or NOTIFY access to these objects and possibly to even encrypt the values of these objects when sending them over the network via SNMP. These are the tables and objects and their sensitivity/vulnerability: o the gmplsInterfaceTable, gmplsInSegmentTable, gmplsOutSegmentTable and gmplsLabelTable collectively show the LSP network topology and its capabilities. If an Administrator does not want to reveal this information, then these tables should be considered sensitive/vulnerable. SNMP versions prior to SNMPv3 did not include adequate security. Even if the network itself is secure (for example by using IPSec), even then, there is no control as to who on the secure network is allowed to access and GET/SET (read/change/create/delete) the objects in these MIB modules. It is RECOMMENDED that implementers consider the security features as provided by the SNMPv3 framework (see [RFC3410], section 8), including full support for the SNMPv3 cryptographic mechanisms (for authentication and privacy). Further, deployment of SNMP versions prior to SNMPv3 is NOT RECOMMENDED. Instead, it is RECOMMENDED to deploy SNMPv3 and to enable cryptographic security. It is then a customer/operator responsibility to ensure that the SNMP entity giving access to an instance of this MIB module, is properly configured to give access to the objects only to those principals (users) that have legitimate rights to indeed GET or SET (change/create/delete) them. 10. Acknowledgments Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 37] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 This document is a product of the CCAMP Working Group. This document extends [RFC3813]. The authors would like to express their gratitude to all those who worked on that earlier MIB document. The authors would like to express their thanks to Dan Joyle for his careful review and comments on early versions of the Label Table. Special thanks to Joan Cucchiara and Len Nieman for their help with compilation issues. Tom Petch and Bert Wijnen provided useful input in the final stages of review. Joan Cucchiara provided a helpful and very thorough MIB Doctor review. 11. IANA Considerations -- (Note to RFC-Editor:) -- We request that you assign contiguous RFC numbers to the three GMPLS -- MIB documents. -- The first number to draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib, the second to -- draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib, and the third to -- draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-te-mib. -- (Please remove this note prior to publication.) IANA is requested to root MIB objects in the two MIB modules contained in this document under the mplsStdMIB subtree. In the future, GMPLS related standards track MIB modules should be rooted under the mplsStdMIB (sic) subtree. IANA has been requested to manage that namespace in the SMI Numbers registry [RFC3811]. New assignments can only be made via a Standards Action as specified in [RFC2434]. 11.1. IANA Considerations for GMPLS-LSR-STD-MIB The IANA is requested to assign { mplsStdMIB YYY } to the GMPLS-LSR-STD-MIB module specified in this document, and to record the assignment in the SMI Numbers registry. -- RFC Editor. Please replace YYY above with the OID assigned by IANA -- and remove this note 11.2. IANA Considerations for GMPLS-LABEL-STD-MIB The IANA is requested to assign { mplsStdMIB ZZZ } to the GMPLS-LABEL-STD-MIB module specified in this document, and to record the assignment in the SMI Numbers registry. -- RFC Editor. Please replace ZZZ above with the OID assigned by IANA Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 38] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 -- and remove this note 12. References 12.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirements Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC2578] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Structure of Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC 2578, April 1999. [RFC2579] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Textual Conventions for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2579, April 1999. [RFC2580] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Conformance Statements for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2580, April 1999. [RFC2863] McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group MIB", RFC 2863, June 2000. [RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001. [RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y., Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack Encoding", RFC 3032, January 2001. [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. [RFC3289] Baker, F., Chan, K., and A. Smith, "Management Information Base for the Differentiated Services Architecture", RFC 3289, May 2002. [RFC3443] Agarwal, P. and Akyol, B., "Time To Live (TTL) Processing in Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Networks", RFC 3443, January 2003. [RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, January 2003. Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 39] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 [RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. [RFC3811] Nadeau, T. and J. Cucchiara, "Definition of Textual Conventions and for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Management", RFC 3811, June 2004. [RFC3813] Srinivasan, C., Viswanathan, A., and T. Nadeau, "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switching (LSR) Router Management Information Base (MIB)", RFC 3813, June 2004. [RFC3945] Mannie, E., Ed., "Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004. [RFC3946] Mannie, E. and D. Papadimitriou, "Generalized Multi- Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control", RFC 3946, October 2004. [GMPLSTCMIB] Nadeau, T. and A. Farrel, "Definitions of Textual Conventions for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Management", draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib, work in progress. [GMPLSTEMIB] Nadeau, T. and A. Farrel, "Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Management Information Base", draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-te-mib, work in progress. 12.2. Informative References [RFC3410] Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D., and B. Stewart, "Introduction and Applicability Statements for Internet-Standard Management Framework", RFC 3410, December 2002. [RFC3468] Andersson, L., and Swallow, G., "The Multiprotocol=20 Label Switching (MPLS) Working Group decision on=20 MPLS signaling protocols", RFC 3468, February 2003. [RFC3472] Ashwood-Smith, P. and L. Berger, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Signaling - Constraint-based Routed Label Distribution Protocol Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 40] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 (CR-LDP) Extensions", RFC 3472, January 2003. [RFC3812] Srinivasan, C., Viswanathan, A., and T. Nadeau, "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Management Information Base (MIB)", RFC 3812, June 2004. 13. Contact Information Thomas D. Nadeau Cisco Systems, Inc. 1414 Massachusetts Ave. Boxborough, MA 01719 Email: tnadeau@cisco.com Adrian Farrel Old Dog Consulting Phone: +44-(0)-1978-860944 Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk Cheenu Srinivasan Bloomberg L.P. 731 Lexington Ave. New York, NY 10022 Phone: +1-212-617-3682 Email: cheenu@bloomberg.net Tim Hall Data Connection Ltd. 100 Church Street Enfield, Middlesex, EN2 6BQ, UK Phone: +44 20 8366 1177 Email: tim.hall@dataconnection.com Ed Harrison Data Connection Ltd. 100 Church Street Enfield, Middlesex, EN2 6BQ, UK Phone: +44 20 8366 1177 Email: ed.harrison@dataconnection.com Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 41] =0C draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt April 28, 2006 14. Intellectual Property Considerations The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights 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; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat 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 implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- ipr@ietf.org. 15. Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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. Nadeau and Farrel Expires October 2006 [Page 42] --Apple-Mail-17-1044836305 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed --Apple-Mail-17-1044836305-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 04 May 2006 19:28:24 +0000 Message-ID: <042d01c66fb1$8be5de30$020210ac@youref3aa80866> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Subject: Fw: IETF Meeting Survey Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 20:03:44 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, In case you haven't seen this and feel moved to complete it. Only if you give them can the Secretariat take your opinions into account. Thanks, Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ray Pelletier" <rpelletier@isoc.org> To: <wgchairs@ietf.org> Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 4:24 PM Subject: IETF Meeting Survey > All; > It has been suggested that if I really wanted to get feedback on the > Meeting Survey (and I do) I should have it forwarded by the WG Chairs > to the working groups - so this is a request that you ask members of the > working groups to complete a short survey that focuses primarily, but > not exclusively, on their meeting experience in Dallas. > > I truly want the info to make the changes members of the community want, > if possible and greatly appreciate your assistance in this regard. > > Those interested in taking the survey can find it at: > http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=649182049947 > > Thanks > Ray Pelletier > IETF Admininstrative Director > > > > > > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 03 May 2006 15:47:15 +0000 Message-ID: <4458D03D.8020304@science.uva.nl> Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 17:46:05 +0200 From: Freek Dijkstra <fdijkstr@science.uva.nl> User-Agent: Mail/News 1.5.0.2 (Macintosh/20060401) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: How to announce ethernet capabilities in GMPLS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, I have a question about GMPLS. My interest is mostly scientific in nature; and after reading a few RFC's and internet drafts, I still found no satisfying answer. I may have overlooked it. How would you specify the encoding type for a link with IEEE 802.1q VLAN tags versus a link which can not do that? And related, how to distinguish between WAN PHY and LAN PHY encoding? Imagine a small network with 3 or 4 layer 2 switches, with all interfaces connected to one central photonic cross connect (MEMS device). In such a case, it is useful to know the above details. If I'm correct, a Layer 2 switch announces the capabilities of each interface using a link state advertisement (LSA). A LSA seems to contain at least - "LSP encoding type" and - "switching type". In all cases, the parameters seem to be "Ethernet" and "L2SC" respectively. At least draft-papadimitriou-enhanced-lsps-04 explictly says that WAN PHY and LAN PHY both fall in the Ethernet "LSP Encoding Type". draft-dimitri-gels-framework-00 seems to suggest that perhaps new encoding types must be invented. I take it that I misunderstood, and this will be defined in the "Switching Capability-Specific Information" part of the LSA. I tried looking, and Adrian's excellent Internet and it's protocols lists that the "Switching Capability-Specific Information" for L2SC only lists "minimum bandwidth" and "MTU". Am I correct that the GELS working group will look into extensions for this purpose? I'm currently not interested (yet) in the specific details, but mostly in the general idea here. Is there by any chance a list of already defined "Switching Capability-Specific Information" parameters for other layers? Perhaps a list of internet drafts to go through. I might be wrong here somewhere -- somehow WAN/LAN PHY and IEEE 802.1q VLAN or not capable seem other type of parameters to me then "MTU" (which is currently defined for L2SC). If so -- what am I missing? Regards, Freek Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 03 May 2006 10:33:46 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: New working group chair Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 12:33:08 +0200 Message-ID: <7DBAFEC6A76F3E42817DF1EBE64CB026035E8BF7@FTRDMEL2.rd.francetelecom.fr> Thread-Topic: New working group chair Thread-Index: AcZuBUsaEpXHmSR4QxGvvnmE84A73AAlY+SQ From: "MEURIC Julien RD-CORE-LAN" <julien.meuric@francetelecom.com> To: "Kireeti Kompella" <kireeti@juniper.net>, "Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" <dbrungard@att.com> Cc: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Goodbye Kireeti, thanks for the accomplished work. Hi Deborah, welcome on board! :-) Julien -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kireeti Kompella On Tue, 2 May 2006, Adrian Farrel wrote: > After a period of discussion, the ADs have appointed Deborah Brungard as our=20 > new co-chair. > She can be reached at dbrungard@att.com Great choice! Congratulations, Deborah! Kireeti. ------- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 03 May 2006 09:46:23 +0000 Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 17:30:10 +0800 From: lidan 37133 <danli@huawei.com> Subject: =?gb2312?B?u9i4tA==?=:New working group chair To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org, Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net>, fenner@research.att.com, "Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" <dbrungard@att.com> Message-id: <7c7dd74ca0.74ca07c7dd@huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=gb2312 Content-language: zh-CN Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Content-disposition: inline Hi=2C Thanks Kireeti for your hard work to this community! Congratulations=2C Deborah! Dan Li ----- =D4=AD=D3=CA=BC=FE ----- =B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB=3A Adrian Farrel =3Cadrian=40olddog=2Eco=2Euk=3E =C8=D5=C6=DA=3A =D0=C7=C6=DA=B6=FE=2C =CE=E5=D4=C2 2=C8=D5=2C 2006 =CF=C2= =CE=E77=3A37 =D6=F7=CC=E2=3A New working group chair =3E Hi=2C =3E = =3E After a period of discussion=2C the ADs have appointed Deborah = =3E Brungard as our = =3E new co-chair=2E =3E She can be reached at dbrungard=40att=2Ecom =3E = =3E I=27m sure you=27ll all join me in thanking Kireeti for his long = =3E service to the = =3E working group=2C and in welcoming Deborah=2E =3E = =3E Thanks=2C =3E Adrian = =3E = =3E = =3E = =3E Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 02 May 2006 18:11:06 +0000 Message-ID: <4457A098.30703@us.fujitsu.com> Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 11:10:32 -0700 From: Richard Rabbat <richard@us.fujitsu.com> Organization: Fujitsu Labs of America User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (Windows/20060308) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> CC: ccamp@ops.ietf.org, Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net>, fenner@research.att.com, "Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" <dbrungard@att.com>, Richard Rabbat <richard@us.fujitsu.com> Subject: Re: New working group chair Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks for all the hard work Kireeti. A round of martinis on me in Montreal to celebrate Deborah's starting tenure Richard. Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi, > > After a period of discussion, the ADs have appointed Deborah Brungard > as our new co-chair. > She can be reached at dbrungard@att.com > > I'm sure you'll all join me in thanking Kireeti for his long service > to the working group, and in welcoming Deborah. > > Thanks, > Adrian > > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 02 May 2006 18:01:58 +0000 Message-ID: <013a01c66e12$7deb7f10$7d1810ac@movaz.com> From: "Igor Bryskin" <ibryskin@movaz.com> To: "Kireeti Kompella" <kireeti@juniper.net>, "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Cc: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, "Ross Callon" <rcallon@juniper.net>, "Bill Fenner" <fenner@research.att.com>, "Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" <dbrungard@att.com> Subject: Re: New working group chair Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 14:01:52 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hey Deborah, congrats! Thanks, Kireeti for the hard work. I hope will still see you at IETFs. Igor ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kireeti Kompella" <kireeti@juniper.net> To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Cc: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>; "Ross Callon" <rcallon@juniper.net>; "Bill Fenner" <fenner@research.att.com>; "Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" <dbrungard@att.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 12:17 PM Subject: Re: New working group chair > On Tue, 2 May 2006, Adrian Farrel wrote: > > > After a period of discussion, the ADs have appointed Deborah Brungard as our > > new co-chair. > > She can be reached at dbrungard@att.com > > Great choice! Congratulations, Deborah! > > Kireeti. > ------- > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 02 May 2006 18:00:15 +0000 Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 12:58:24 -0500 From: Lucy Yong <lucyyong@huawei.com> Subject: RE: New working group chair To: v.sharma@ieee.org, 'Adrian Farrel' <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, ccamp@ops.ietf.org Cc: 'Ross Callon' <rcallon@juniper.net>, fenner@research.att.com, "'Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS'" <dbrungard@att.com> Message-id: <000701c66e12$056bb7d0$d4087c0a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Many thanks to Kireeti and a kind welcome to Deborah. -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Vishal Sharma Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 12:52 PM To: 'Adrian Farrel'; ccamp@ops.ietf.org Cc: 'Ross Callon'; fenner@research.att.com; 'Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS' Subject: RE: New working group chair Adrian, Kireeti, First, a heartfelt thanks to Kireeti for his service to our community and the WG, and a warm welcome to Deborah. -Vishal > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org > [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel > Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 4:37 AM > To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org > Cc: Ross Callon; fenner@research.att.com; Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS > Subject: New working group chair > > Hi, > > After a period of discussion, the ADs have appointed Deborah > Brungard as our new co-chair. > She can be reached at dbrungard@att.com > > I'm sure you'll all join me in thanking Kireeti for his long > service to the working group, and in welcoming Deborah. > > Thanks, > Adrian > > > > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 02 May 2006 17:50:21 +0000 Reply-To: <v.sharma@ieee.org> From: "Vishal Sharma" <v.sharma@ieee.org> To: "'Adrian Farrel'" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Cc: "'Ross Callon'" <rcallon@juniper.net>, <fenner@research.att.com>, "'Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS'" <dbrungard@att.com> Subject: RE: New working group chair Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 10:51:54 -0700 Organization: Metanoia, Inc. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thread-Index: AcZt3oxC/+/zqtwcTkmASNzvI14E2AAMkMdw Message-Id: <E1Faz0H-0000Pz-Bv@psg.com> Adrian, Kireeti, First, a heartfelt thanks to Kireeti for his service to our community and the WG, and a warm welcome to Deborah. -Vishal > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org > [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel > Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 4:37 AM > To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org > Cc: Ross Callon; fenner@research.att.com; Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS > Subject: New working group chair > > Hi, > > After a period of discussion, the ADs have appointed Deborah > Brungard as our new co-chair. > She can be reached at dbrungard@att.com > > I'm sure you'll all join me in thanking Kireeti for his long > service to the working group, and in welcoming Deborah. > > Thanks, > Adrian > > > > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 02 May 2006 16:58:01 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.3.060209 Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 12:57:42 -0400 Subject: Re: New working group chair From: Monique Morrow <mmorrow@cisco.com> To: George Swallow <swallow@cisco.com>, Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net> CC: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net>, Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com>, "Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" <dbrungard@att.com> Message-ID: <C07D07C6.22F74%mmorrow@cisco.com> Thread-Topic: New working group chair Thread-Index: AcZuCYauxVGA7Nn8EdqVEAANk8LkKg== Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Echo the hearty congrats! /monique On 2/5/06 12:46 pm, "George Swallow" <swallow@cisco.com> wrote: >> Great choice! Congratulations, Deborah! > > Hear, hear! > > ...George > > ======================================================================== > George Swallow Cisco Systems (978) 936-1398 > 1414 Massachusetts Avenue > Boxborough, MA 01719 Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 02 May 2006 16:47:07 +0000 To: Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net> Cc: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, ccamp@ops.ietf.org, Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net>, Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com>, "Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" <dbrungard@att.com> Cc: swallow@cisco.com Subject: Re: New working group chair From: George Swallow <swallow@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 12:46:51 -0400 Message-Id: <20060502164651.84DBA2473CB@swallow-mini-mac.local> > Great choice! Congratulations, Deborah! Hear, hear! ...George ======================================================================== George Swallow Cisco Systems (978) 936-1398 1414 Massachusetts Avenue Boxborough, MA 01719 Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 02 May 2006 16:29:18 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: New working group chair Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 12:28:59 -0400 Message-ID: <BABC859E6D0B9A4D8448CC7F41CD2B0701B0EA40@xmb-rtp-203.amer.cisco.com> Thread-Topic: New working group chair Thread-Index: AcZuBCm6IbjjyYWFRpurovTCYwN24AAAK7PA From: "Zafar Ali \(zali\)" <zali@cisco.com> To: "Kireeti Kompella" <kireeti@juniper.net>, "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Cc: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, "Ross Callon" <rcallon@juniper.net>, "Bill Fenner" <fenner@research.att.com>, "Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" <dbrungard@att.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org=20 > [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kireeti Kompella > Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 12:18 PM > To: Adrian Farrel > Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Ross Callon; Bill Fenner; Brungard,=20 > Deborah A, ALABS > Subject: Re: New working group chair >=20 > On Tue, 2 May 2006, Adrian Farrel wrote: >=20 > > After a period of discussion, the ADs have appointed=20 > Deborah Brungard=20 > > as our new co-chair. > > She can be reached at dbrungard@att.com >=20 > Great choice! Congratulations, Deborah! >=20 I would second that. Congrat Deborah.=20 I would also like to Thank Kireeti for his hard work as CCAMP chair over the last many years.=20 Thanks Regards... Zafar=20 > Kireeti. > ------- >=20 Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 02 May 2006 16:19:10 +0000 Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 09:17:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net> To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org, Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net>, Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com>, "Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" <dbrungard@att.com> Subject: Re: New working group chair Message-ID: <20060502091605.I52904@kummer.juniper.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On Tue, 2 May 2006, Adrian Farrel wrote: > After a period of discussion, the ADs have appointed Deborah Brungard as our > new co-chair. > She can be reached at dbrungard@att.com Great choice! Congratulations, Deborah! Kireeti. ------- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 02 May 2006 11:32:48 +0000 Message-ID: <025201c66ddc$f57a8d40$020210ac@youref3aa80866> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Cc: "Ross Callon" <rcallon@juniper.net>, <fenner@research.att.com>, "Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" <dbrungard@att.com> Subject: New working group chair Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 12:37:19 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, After a period of discussion, the ADs have appointed Deborah Brungard as our new co-chair. She can be reached at dbrungard@att.com I'm sure you'll all join me in thanking Kireeti for his long service to the working group, and in welcoming Deborah. Thanks, Adrian Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 02 May 2006 07:35:20 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C66DBA.C15B30C1" Subject: RE: Question about relationship between control channels and TE links(?) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 09:34:03 +0200 Message-ID: <D109C8C97C15294495117745780657AE04D05BBE@ftrdmel1.rd.francetelecom.fr> Thread-Topic: Question about relationship between control channels and TE links(?) Thread-Index: AcZtkHboHZlS2oZmQeWdnnimvtMygwAKi8Nw From: "LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN" <jeanlouis.leroux@francetelecom.com> To: "Kim Young Hwa" <yhwkim@etri.re.kr>, <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C66DBA.C15B30C1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Kim, =20 You should have a look at RFC 4204 =20 Regards =20 JL ________________________________ De : owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] De la = part de Kim Young Hwa Envoy=E9 : mardi 2 mai 2006 04:31 =C0 : ccamp@ops.ietf.org Objet : Question about relationship between control channels and TE = links(?) =09 =09 Hi, I've a question of the relationship between control channels and TE = links. All links with the same TE characteristics bewteen two adjacent nodes, = maybe called a TE link, are grouped together. If we have multiple TE links due to different physical interface types = and only one common control channel between these nodes, how can we get = the result of neighbor discoveries between these nodes? I know that a TE link between a pair of LSRs doesn't imply the = existence of a routing adjacency between LSRs. But, I think that a IGP = should perform Hello protocols to identify their neighbors about the = different physical interfaces over the single control channel. Then, in = a GMPLS domain under the separation of control channels, I do not know = well that a Hello protocol of a IGP carried over the control channel = works for the neighbor discovery? Looking at OSPFv2(rfc2178] and GMPLS-OSPF(rfc4203), I could not see a = content that my question is resolved. Could someone help me to find out the answer? =20 = <http://umail.etri.re.kr/External_ReadCheck.aspx?email=3Dccamp@ops.ietf.o= rg&name=3Dccamp%40ops.ietf.org&fromemail=3Dyhwkim@etri.re.kr&messageid=3D= %3Cae60e54b-14ac-457b-b8af-fc3e4453c064@etri.re.kr%3E>=20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C66DBA.C15B30C1 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1"> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2802" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D251043307-02052006><FONT = face=3DArial=20 color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>Hi Kim,</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D251043307-02052006><FONT = face=3DArial=20 color=3D#0000ff size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D251043307-02052006><FONT = face=3DArial=20 color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>You should have a look at RFC = 4204</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D251043307-02052006><FONT = face=3DArial=20 color=3D#0000ff size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D251043307-02052006><FONT = face=3DArial=20 color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>Regards</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D251043307-02052006><FONT = face=3DArial=20 color=3D#0000ff size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D251043307-02052006><FONT = face=3DArial=20 color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>JL</FONT></SPAN></DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE=20 style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px = solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader lang=3Dfr dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft> <HR tabIndex=3D-1> <FONT face=3DTahoma size=3D2><B>De :</B> owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org = [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] <B>De la part de</B> Kim Young=20 Hwa<BR><B>Envoy=E9 :</B> mardi 2 mai 2006 = 04:31<BR><B>=C0 :</B>=20 ccamp@ops.ietf.org<BR><B>Objet :</B> Question about relationship = between=20 control channels and TE links(?)<BR></FONT><BR></DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV id=3Dmsgbody style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: System"> <DIV>Hi,</DIV> <DIV>I've a question of the relationship between control channels and = TE=20 links.</DIV> <DIV>All links with the same TE characteristics bewteen two adjacent = nodes,=20 maybe called a TE link, are grouped together.</DIV> <DIV> <DIV>If we have multiple TE links due to different physical interface = types=20 and only one common control channel between these nodes, how can we = get the=20 result of neighbor discoveries between these nodes?</DIV> <DIV>I know that <SPAN lang=3DEN-US=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 20pt; mso-fareast-font-family: ??; = mso-hansi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-language: KO"><FONT=20 size=3D2>a TE link between a pair of LSRs doesn't imply the existence = of a=20 routing adjacency between LSRs. But, I think that a IGP should perform = Hello=20 protocols to identify their neighbors about the different = physical=20 interfaces over the single control channel. Then, in a GMPLS domain = under the=20 separation of control channels, I do not know well that a Hello = protocol of a=20 IGP carried over the control channel works for the neighbor=20 discovery?</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN lang=3DEN-US=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 20pt; mso-fareast-font-family: ??; = mso-hansi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-language: KO"><FONT=20 size=3D2>Looking at OSPFv2(rfc2178] and GMPLS-OSPF(rfc4203), I = could not=20 see a content that my question is resolved.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN lang=3DEN-US=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 20pt; mso-fareast-font-family: ??; = mso-hansi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-language: KO"><FONT=20 size=3D2>Could someone help me to find out the = answer?</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN lang=3DEN-US=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 20pt; mso-fareast-font-family: ??; = mso-hansi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-language: KO"><FONT=20 size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV></DIV></DIV><IMG style=3D"DISPLAY: = none"=20 height=3D0=20 = src=3D"http://umail.etri.re.kr/External_ReadCheck.aspx?email=3Dccamp@ops.= ietf.org&name=3Dccamp%40ops.ietf.org&fromemail=3Dyhwkim@etri.re.k= r&messageid=3D%3Cae60e54b-14ac-457b-b8af-fc3e4453c064@etri.re.kr%3E" = width=3D0 NOSEND=3D"1"></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C66DBA.C15B30C1-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 02 May 2006 02:29:36 +0000 Thread-Topic: Question about relationship between control channels and TE links(?) Thread-Index: AcZtkHboHZlS2oZmQeWdnnimvtMygw== Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: "Kim Young Hwa" <yhwkim@etri.re.kr> From: "Kim Young Hwa" <yhwkim@etri.re.kr> To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Cc: Bcc: Subject: Question about relationship between control channels and TE links(?) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 11:31:06 +0900 Comment: GQ19@|@ZEk=E?,18?x, ASON1b<zF@, 4c4g Message-ID: <4e4501c66d90$76eb05f0$8310fe81@etri.info> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_4E46_01C66DDB.E6D2ADF0" Content-class: urn:content-classes:message This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_4E46_01C66DDB.E6D2ADF0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 ------=_NextPart_000_4E46_01C66DDB.E6D2ADF0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PERJViBpZD1tc2dib2R5IHN0eWxlPSJGT05ULVNJWkU6IDEwcHQ7IEZPTlQtRkFNSUxZOiBTeXN0 ZW0iPg0KPERJVj5IaSw8L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+SSd2ZSBhIHF1ZXN0aW9uIG9mIHRoZSByZWxhdGlv bnNoaXAgYmV0d2VlbiBjb250cm9sIGNoYW5uZWxzIGFuZCBURSBsaW5rcy48L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+ QWxsIGxpbmtzIHdpdGggdGhlIHNhbWUgVEUgY2hhcmFjdGVyaXN0aWNzIGJld3RlZW4gdHdvIGFk amFjZW50IG5vZGVzLCBtYXliZSBjYWxsZWQgYSBURSBsaW5rLCBhcmUgZ3JvdXBlZCB0b2dldGhl ci48L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+DQo8RElWPklmIHdlIGhhdmUgbXVsdGlwbGUgVEUgbGlua3MgZHVlIHRv IGRpZmZlcmVudCBwaHlzaWNhbCBpbnRlcmZhY2UgdHlwZXMgYW5kIG9ubHkgb25lIGNvbW1vbiBj b250cm9sIGNoYW5uZWwgYmV0d2VlbiB0aGVzZSBub2RlcywgaG93IGNhbiB3ZSBnZXQgdGhlIHJl c3VsdCBvZiBuZWlnaGJvciBkaXNjb3ZlcmllcyBiZXR3ZWVuIHRoZXNlIG5vZGVzPzwvRElWPg0K PERJVj5JIGtub3cgdGhhdCZuYnNwOyA8U1BBTiBsYW5nPUVOLVVTIHN0eWxlPSJGT05ULVNJWkU6 IDIwcHQ7IG1zby1mYXJlYXN0LWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiA/PzsgbXNvLWhhbnNpLWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5 OiBBcmlhbDsgbXNvLWZhcmVhc3QtbGFuZ3VhZ2U6IEtPIj48Rk9OVCBzaXplPTI+YSBURSBsaW5r IGJldHdlZW4gYSBwYWlyIG9mIExTUnMgZG9lc24ndCBpbXBseSB0aGUgZXhpc3RlbmNlIG9mIGEg cm91dGluZyBhZGphY2VuY3kgYmV0d2VlbiBMU1JzLiBCdXQsIEkgdGhpbmsgdGhhdCBhIElHUCBz aG91bGQgcGVyZm9ybSBIZWxsbyBwcm90b2NvbHMgdG8gaWRlbnRpZnkmbmJzcDt0aGVpciBuZWln aGJvcnMgYWJvdXQgdGhlIGRpZmZlcmVudCBwaHlzaWNhbCBpbnRlcmZhY2VzIG92ZXIgdGhlIHNp bmdsZSBjb250cm9sIGNoYW5uZWwuIFRoZW4sIGluIGEgR01QTFMgZG9tYWluIHVuZGVyIHRoZSBz ZXBhcmF0aW9uIG9mIGNvbnRyb2wgY2hhbm5lbHMsIEkgZG8gbm90IGtub3cgd2VsbCB0aGF0IGEg SGVsbG8gcHJvdG9jb2wgb2YgYSBJR1AgY2FycmllZCBvdmVyIHRoZSBjb250cm9sIGNoYW5uZWwg d29ya3MgZm9yIHRoZSBuZWlnaGJvciBkaXNjb3Zlcnk/PC9GT05UPjwvU1BBTj48L0RJVj4NCjxE SVY+PFNQQU4gbGFuZz1FTi1VUyBzdHlsZT0iRk9OVC1TSVpFOiAyMHB0OyBtc28tZmFyZWFzdC1m b250LWZhbWlseTogPz87IG1zby1oYW5zaS1mb250LWZhbWlseTogQXJpYWw7IG1zby1mYXJlYXN0 LWxhbmd1YWdlOiBLTyI+PEZPTlQgc2l6ZT0yPkxvb2tpbmcgYXQmbmJzcDtPU1BGdjIocmZjMjE3 OF0gYW5kIEdNUExTLU9TUEYocmZjNDIwMyksIEkgY291bGQgbm90IHNlZSBhIGNvbnRlbnQgdGhh dCBteSBxdWVzdGlvbiBpcyByZXNvbHZlZC48L0ZPTlQ+PC9TUEFOPjwvRElWPg0KPERJVj48U1BB TiBsYW5nPUVOLVVTIHN0eWxlPSJGT05ULVNJWkU6IDIwcHQ7IG1zby1mYXJlYXN0LWZvbnQtZmFt aWx5OiA/PzsgbXNvLWhhbnNpLWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiBBcmlhbDsgbXNvLWZhcmVhc3QtbGFuZ3Vh Z2U6IEtPIj48Rk9OVCBzaXplPTI+Q291bGQgc29tZW9uZSBoZWxwIG1lIHRvIGZpbmQgb3V0IHRo ZSBhbnN3ZXI/PC9GT05UPjwvU1BBTj48L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+PFNQQU4gbGFuZz1FTi1VUyBzdHls ZT0iRk9OVC1TSVpFOiAyMHB0OyBtc28tZmFyZWFzdC1mb250LWZhbWlseTogPz87IG1zby1oYW5z aS1mb250LWZhbWlseTogQXJpYWw7IG1zby1mYXJlYXN0LWxhbmd1YWdlOiBLTyI+PEZPTlQgc2l6 ZT0yPjwvRk9OVD48L1NQQU4+Jm5ic3A7PC9ESVY+PC9ESVY+PC9ESVY+PGltZyBzdHlsZT0iZGlz cGxheTpub25lIiB3aWR0aD0wIGhlaWdodD0wIHNyYz0iaHR0cDovL3VtYWlsLmV0cmkucmUua3Iv RXh0ZXJuYWxfUmVhZENoZWNrLmFzcHg/ZW1haWw9Y2NhbXBAb3BzLmlldGYub3JnJm5hbWU9Y2Nh bXAlNDBvcHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcmZnJvbWVtYWlsPXlod2tpbUBldHJpLnJlLmtyJm1lc3NhZ2VpZD0l M0NhZTYwZTU0Yi0xNGFjLTQ1N2ItYjhhZi1mYzNlNDQ1M2MwNjRAZXRyaS5yZS5rciUzRSI+ ------=_NextPart_000_4E46_01C66DDB.E6D2ADF0-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 02 May 2006 00:23:59 +0000 To: Richard Rabbat <richard@us.fujitsu.com> Cc: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, ccamp@ops.ietf.org, dimitri papadimitriou <dpapadimitriou@psg.com>, owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: Question about carrying the call id MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <OF3D2A5FB2.3C55545F-ONC1257161.00830434-C1257162.0002219E@netfr.alcatel.fr> From: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 02:23:16 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" hi richard association object associates by definition LSPs (using per-sender node identifier and address) on the other side a call creates an association between end-points by which subsequent LSPs may be made (call ids are unique within the context of the pair of addresses that are the call source and destination) thanks, - dimitri. Richard Rabbat <richard@us.fujitsu.com> Sent by: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org 27/04/2006 19:56 To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, dimitri papadimitriou <dpapadimitriou@psg.com> cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Question about carrying the call id < Attachment richard.vcf removed > Hi Adrian, Dimitri, In your slides regarding ASON, you mentioned in slide 7 http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06mar/slides/ccamp-4/sld7.htm that the current proposal is to match the session object but that an alternative may be using the association object. has there been a decision either way and what was the rationale? thanks, Richard. Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 01 May 2006 23:33:27 +0000 Message-ID: <01cd01c66d78$559159d0$020210ac@youref3aa80866> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> To: "JP Vasseur" <jvasseur@cisco.com>, "LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN" <jeanlouis.leroux@francetelecom.com> Cc: <pce@ietf.org>, <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Pce] Comparison of Encryption vs. Path Key Solutions for theCPSID. Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 17:51:16 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="Windows-1252"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Sorry that I haven't been following this too closely. Jean Louis made a couple of interesting points... >>PCE WG members: thanks to provide your feedback on whether: >>(1) You think that there is a need for such solution, > >Yes definitely, confidentiality is a key requirements in an inter-provider >context. > >>(2) You would prefer one solution (which one and why ?) >>(3) You think that there is a need for both > >Answer to (2) and (3): > >It seems to me that we should end-up with a single solution so as to ease >interworking. Of course, interworking is important and options are generally a Bad Thing (TM), but if the different solutions are beneficial in different environments then we can easily specify support for both options as mandatory. There will, in any case, be a policy decision at an domain border router to say how (and if) to process and encryption/path key. So, for me, the question is whether there are different environments under which each of the options is preferable. > IMO in an inter-AS MPLS-TE environment without PCEs, the paths > will be loose anyway, so there will not be any confidentiality issue. I am not sure. The point we are trying to make is that, in order to determine a viable (not to mention optimal) end-to-end path, it will have been necessary to compute the entire path. This may have been achieved privately by independent (albeit cooperating) PCEs. In this case I think we are agreed that the full path would not be passed back to the ingress PCC for signaling, and so loose hops or strict abstract nodes would be used. But the question is what to do with the computed information so that it is not necessary to recompute when the signaling message enters the domain. One option, as you suggest, is to send it out to the domain border routers in anticipation of a signaling message (and potentially use a key to unlock it), a second option is to retain the information on the PCE and look it up using a key. The third option is to encrypt the path. It seems to me that the first option requires the second to handle races, memory over-load, etc. So, in fact, the first option is an implementation optimization (but we may still need to make protocol changes to ensure that it is supported). And my question reduces to: Are there any circmstances under which ERO encryption is of value to us? > If have some concerns regarding the cost of encryption, particularly for > large paths (we need to think about future P2MP applications with a > large number of hops...). I am not so sure that the encryption of an ERO is so significant using today's technology. Indeed, one might equally argue that the cost of distributing a large number of paths for multiple destinations to several domain entry points could also be high. > By the way, encryption approaches are really vulnerable > to DoS attacks. This sounds really important. What you mean is presumably that we could waste a lot of CPU decrypting an ERO that is bogus. But why is this more of a problem than receiving a bogus LSP setup request that causes us to do extra computation? Or a Path message with a bogus path key that causes us to consult the local PCE for a non-existent path? > Hence I would strongly favor the PKS solution. The optimization > suggested, which consists of sending the computed path segment > to the LSR in an unsolicited manner, just after the computation, > sounds relevant and should be further investigated. I think this is a valid application, but I would not want to see it made *the* standard technique since it gives me scaling worries for the future. Thanks, Adrian Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 01 May 2006 21:48:08 +0000 From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org> Cc: Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, ccamp mailing list <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, ccamp chair <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Subject: Document Action: 'Reoptimization of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) loosely routed Label Switch Path (LSP)' to Informational RFC Message-Id: <E1FagDs-0005lT-NZ@stiedprstage1.ietf.org> Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 17:46:28 -0400 The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Reoptimization of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) loosely routed Label Switch Path (LSP) ' <draft-ietf-ccamp-loose-path-reopt-02.txt> as an Informational RFC This document is the product of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Ross Callon and Bill Fenner. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-loose-path-reopt-02.txt Technical Summary This document defines a mechanism for the reoptimization of loosely routed MPLS and GMPLS (Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching) Traffic Engineering (TE) LSPs signaled with RSVP-TE. Working Group Summary As far as I know there was no dissent. I am concerned that the document might not have had as many people seriously interested in it as might be optimal to make sure that all options are considered in detail. Protocol Quality This has been approved as "informational". There are very minor editorial sub-optimal use of English words. For example, at the beginning of section 3: "The aim of this section is purely to remind the mechanisms involved in...". Here the word "remind" should be "summarize". There are only a small number of these, and thus they can be corrected by the RFC editor prior to publication. Note to RFC Editor There are a few minor nits to be corrected prior to publication: nit1>> The first paragraph of section 3 current says: The aim of this section is purely to remind the mechanisms involved in the establishment of a loosely routed TE LSP (in line with [RFC3209]) and does not introduce any new protocol extensions or mechanisms. This should be corrected to say: The aim of this section is purely to summarize the mechanisms involved in the establishment of a loosely routed TE LSP, as specified in [RFC3209]. The reader should see RFC3209 for a more detailed description of these mechanisms. nit2>>In the first paragraph of section 4, there is a sentence that says: Since a preferable (e.g. shorter) path might not be visible from the head-end LSR by means of the IGP if the head-end LSR does not belong to the head-end IGP area...". This should say: Since a preferable (e.g. shorter) path might not be visible from the head-end LSR by means of the IGP if the head-end LSR does not belong to the same IGP area where the associated topology change occurred...". nit3>> in section 7 there is the sentence: Such a procedure would not be in conflict with any mechanisms not already documented in [RFC3209] and [RFC3473]. this should say: Such a procedure would not be in conflict with any mechanisms already documented in [RFC3209] and [RFC3473]. In addition, the following changes should be made to the IANA Considerations section: REMOVE: IANA will assign a new flag named "Path re-evaluation request" in the SESSION-ATTRIBUTE object (C-Type 1 and 7) specified in [RFC3209]. Suggested value is (to be confirmed by IANA) 0x20. Change: OLD: IANA will also assign three new error sub-code values for the RSVP NEW: IANA will assign three new error sub-code values for the RSVP And in Section 5.1 change: OLD: The following new flag of the SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object (C-Type 1 and 7) is defined (suggested value to be confirmed by IANA): NEW: The following new flag of the SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object (C-Type 1 and 7) is defined: IANA Note The SESSION ATTRIBUTE flag request has been removed via RFC Editor note, as that registry has not yet been created. The assignments for the RSVP PErr error subcodes are still requested. A document will follow to create the SESSION ATTRIBUTE flag registry.
- RE: A new ID is available on the repository draft… Pandian, Vijay
- RE: A new ID is available on the repository draft… Diego Caviglia
- Re: A new ID is available on the repository draft… Adrian Farrel
- Re: A new ID is available on the repository draft… Dimitri.Papadimitriou
- RE: A new ID is available on the repository draft… Pandian, Vijay
- RE: A new ID is available on the repository draft… Dimitri.Papadimitriou
- RE: A new ID is available on the repository draft… Dimitri.Papadimitriou
- RE: A new ID is available on the repository draft… Diego Caviglia