Internet Draft                                         Lou Berger (LabN)
Category: Standards Track                     Don Fedyk (Alcatel-Lucent)
Expiration Date: April 14, 2010

                                                        October 14, 2009

       Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support For Metro Ethernet Forum
                 and G.8011 Ethernet Service Switching

                draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-04.txt

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   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 BCP 78 and 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/1id-abstracts.html

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 14, 2010.

Copyright and License Notice

   Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
   publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights



Berger & Fedyk               Standards Track                    [Page 1]

Internet-Draft  draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-04.txt October 14, 2009


   and restrictions with respect to this document.

Abstract

   This document describes a method for controlling two specific types
   of Ethernet switching via Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
   (GMPLS).  This document supports the types of switching corresponding
   to the Ethernet services that have been defined in the context of the
   Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) and International Telecommunication Union
   (ITU) G.8011.  Specifically, switching in support of Ethernet private
   line and Ethernet virtual private line services are covered.  Support
   for MEF and ITU defined parameters is also covered.


Table of Contents

    1      Introduction  ...........................................   3
    1.1    Overview  ...............................................   3
    1.2    Conventions used in this document  ......................   5
    2      Common Signaling Support  ...............................   5
    2.1    Ethernet Endpoint Identification  .......................   5
    2.1.1  Endpoint ID TLV  ........................................   6
    2.2    Connection Identification  ..............................   6
    2.2.1  Procedures  .............................................   7
    2.3    Traffic Parameters  .....................................   7
    2.3.1  L2 Control Protocol TLV  ................................   7
    2.4    Bundling and VLAN Identification  .......................   9
    3      EPL Service  ............................................   9
    3.1    EPL Service Parameters  .................................   9
    4      EVPL Service  ...........................................  10
    4.1    EVPL Generalized Label Format  ..........................  11
    4.2    Egress VLAN ID Control and VLAN ID preservation  ........  11
    4.3    Single Call - Single LSP  ...............................  12
    4.4    Single Call - Multiple LSPs  ............................  12
    5      IANA Considerations  ....................................  12
    5.1    Endpoint ID Attributes TLV  .............................  12
    5.2    Line LSP Encoding  ......................................  13
    5.3    Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) Switching Type  ....  13
    6      Security Considerations  ................................  13
    7      References  .............................................  14
    7.1    Normative References  ...................................  14
    7.2    Informative References  .................................  15
    8      Acknowledgments  ........................................  15
    9      Author's Addresses  .....................................  16






Berger & Fedyk               Standards Track                    [Page 2]

Internet-Draft  draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-04.txt October 14, 2009


1. Introduction

   [MEF6] and [G.8011] provide parallel frameworks for defining network-
   oriented characteristics of Ethernet services in transport networks.
   The framework discusses general Ethernet connection characteristics,
   Ethernet User-Network Interfaces (UNIs) and Ethernet Network-Network
   Interfaces (NNIs). Within this framework, [G.8011.1] defines the
   Ethernet Private Line (EPL) service and [G.8011.2] defines the
   Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) service. [MEF6] covers both
   service types.  [MEF10.1] defines service parameters and [MEF11]
   provides UNI requirements and framework.

   [MEF6] and [G.8011] are focused on service interfaces and not the
   underlying technology used to support the service.  For example,
   [G.8011] refers to the defined services being transported over one of
   several possible "server layers".  This document focuses on the types
   of switching that may directly support these services and provides a
   method for GMPLS based control of such switching technologies.  This
   document defines the GMPLS extensions needed to support such
   switching, but does not define the UNI or External NNI (E-NNI)
   reference points.  See [GMPLS-MEF-UNI] for a description of the UNI
   reference point.  This document makes use of the traffic parameters
   defined in [ETH-TRAFFIC] and the generic extensions defined in
   [GMPLS-EXT].



1.1. Overview

   This document uses a common approach to supporting the switching
   corresponding to the Ethernet services defined in [MEF6], [G.8011.1]
   and [G.8011.2].  The approach builds on standard GMPLS mechanisms to
   deliver the required control capabilities. This document reuses the
   GMPLS mechanisms specified in [RFC3473] and [RFC4974].  The document
   uses the extensions defined in [GMPLS-EXT].

   Two types of connectivity between Ethernet endpoints are defined in
   [MEF6] and [G.8011]: point-to-point (P2P) and multipoint-to-
   multipoint (MP2MP). [MEF6] uses the term Ethernet Line (E-line) to
   refer to point-to-point virtual connections, and Ethernet LAN (E-LAN)
   to refer to multipoint-to-multipoint virtual connections.  [G.8011]
   also identifies point-to-multipoint (P2MP) as an area for "further
   study."  Within the context of GMPLS, support is defined for point-
   to-point unidirectional and bidirectional TE Label Switched Paths
   (LSPs), see [RFC3473], and unidirectional point-to-multipoint TE
   LSPs, see [RFC4875].

   Support for P2P and MP2MP services is defined by [G.8011] and



Berger & Fedyk               Standards Track                    [Page 3]

Internet-Draft  draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-04.txt October 14, 2009


   required by [MEF11].  Note that while [MEF11] and [G.8011] discuss
   MP2MP, [G.8011.1] and [G.8011.2] only define support for P2P.  There
   is a clear correspondence between E-Line/P2P service and GMPLS P2P TE
   LSPs, and support for such LSPs is included in the scope of this
   document.  There is no such clear correspondence between E-LAN/MP2MP
   service and GMPLS TE LSPs.  Although, it is possible to emulate this
   service using multiple P2P or P2MP TE LSPs, the definition of support
   for MP2MP service is left for future study and is not addressed in
   this document.

   [MEF11] defines multiple types of control for UNI Ethernet services.
   In MEF UNI Type 1, services are configured manually.  In MEF UNI Type
   2, services may be configured manually or via a link management
   interface.  In MEF UNI Type 3, services may be established and
   managed via a signaling interface.  From the MEF perspective, this
   document along with [GMPLS-MEF-UNI] is aimed at the network control
   needed to support the MEF UNI Type 3 mode of operation.

   [G.8011.1], [G.8011.2] and [MEF11] together with [MEF10.1] define a
   set of service attributes that are associated with each Ethernet
   connection.  Some of these attributes are based on the provisioning
   of the local physical connection and are not modifiable or selectable
   per connection.  Other attributes are specific to a particular
   connection, or must be consistent across the connection.  The
   approach taken in this document to communicate these attributes is to
   exclude the static class of attributes from signaling.  This class of
   attributes will not be explicitly discussed in this document.  The
   other class of attributes is communicated via signaling and will be
   reviewed in the sections below.  The major attributes that will be
   supported in signaling include:
      - Endpoint identifiers
      - Connection identifiers
      - Traffic parameters (see [ETH-TRAFFIC])
      - Bundling / VLAN IDs map (EVPL only)
      - VLAN ID Preservation (EVPL only)

   Common procedures used to support Ethernet LSPs are described in
   Section 2 of this document.  Procedures related to the signaling of
   switching in support of EPL services are described in Section 3.
   Procedures related to the signaling of switching in support of EVPL
   services are described in Section 4.










Berger & Fedyk               Standards Track                    [Page 4]

Internet-Draft  draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-04.txt October 14, 2009


1.2. Conventions used in this document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].


2. Common Signaling Support

   This section describes the common mechanisms for supporting GMPLS
   signaled control of LSPs that provide Ethernet connections as defined
   in [MEF11], [G.8011.1] and [G.8011.2].

   Except as specifically modified in this document, the procedures
   related to the processing of RSVP objects are not modified by this
   document.  The relevant procedures in existing documents, such as
   [RFC3473], MUST be followed in all cases not explicitly described in
   this document.


2.1. Ethernet Endpoint Identification

   Ethernet endpoint identifiers, as they are defined in [G.8011] and
   [MEF10.1], differ significantly from the identifiers used by GMPLS.
   Specifically, the Ethernet endpoint identifiers are character based
   as opposed to the GMPLS norm of being IP address based.

   The approach taken by this document to address this disparity
   leverages the solution used for connection identification, see
   Section 2.2 and [RFC4974], and a new CALL_ATTRIBUTES TLV defined in
   this document.  The solution makes use of the [RFC4974] short call
   ID, and supports the Ethernet endpoint identifier similar to
   [RFC4974] supports the long call ID.  That is, the SENDER_TEMPLATE
   and SESSION objects carry IP addresses and a short call ID, and long
   identifiers are carried in the CALL_ATTRIBUTES object.  As with the
   long call ID, the Ethernet endpoint identifier is typically only
   relevant at the ingress and egress nodes.

   As defined below, the Ethernet endpoint identifier is carried in the
   CALL_ATTRIBUTES object in a new TLV.  The new TLV is referred to as
   the Endpoint ID TLV.  The processing of the Endpoint ID TLV parallels
   the processing of the long call ID in [RFC4974].  This processing
   requires the inclusion of the CALL_ATTRIBUTES object in a Notify
   message.







Berger & Fedyk               Standards Track                    [Page 5]

Internet-Draft  draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-04.txt October 14, 2009


2.1.1. Endpoint ID TLV

   The Endpoint ID TLV follows the Attributes TLV format defined in
   [GMPLS-MRN]. The Endpoint ID TLV has the following format:

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |           Type (TBA)          |      Length (variable)        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                          Endpoint ID                          |
      |                              ...                              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Type and Length fields are defined in [GMPLS-MRN].  Note that as
      defined in [GMPLS-MRN], the Length field is set to length of the
      whole TLV including the Type, Length and Endpoint ID fields.

      Endpoint ID

         The Endpoint ID field is a variable size field that carries an
         endpoint identifier, see [MEF10.1] and [G.8011].  This field
         MUST be null padded as defined in [GMPLS-MRN].


2.1.1.1. Procedures

   The use of the Endpoint ID TLV is required during call management.
   When a call is established or torn down per [RFC4974], a
   CALL_ATTRIBUTES object containing an Endpoint ID TLV MUST be included
   in the Notify message along with the Long Call ID.

   Short Call ID processing, including those procedures related to call
   and connection processing, is not modified by this document and MUST
   proceed according to [RFC4974].


2.2. Connection Identification

   Signaling for Ethernet connections follows the procedures defined in
   [RFC4974].  In particular the Call related mechanisms are used to
   support endpoint identification.  In the context of Ethernet
   connections, a call is only established when one or more LSPs
   (connections in [RFC4974] terms) are needed.  An LSP will always be
   established within the context of a call and, typically, only one LSP
   will be used per call.  See Section 4.4 for the case where more than
   one LSP may exist within a call.




Berger & Fedyk               Standards Track                    [Page 6]

Internet-Draft  draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-04.txt October 14, 2009


2.2.1. Procedures

   Any node that supports Ethernet connections MUST be able to accept
   and process call setups per [RFC4974].  Ethernet connections
   established according to this document MUST treat the Ethernet
   (virtual) connection identifier as the long "Call identifier (ID)",
   described in [RFC4974].  The short Call ID MUST be used as described
   in [RFC4974].  Use of the LINK_CAPABILITY object is OPTIONAL. Both
   network-initiated and user-initiated Calls MUST be supported.

   When establishing an Ethernet connection the initiator MUST first
   establish a Call per the procedures defined in [RFC4974]. LSP
   management, including removal and addition, then follows [RFC4974].
   As stated in [RFC4974], once a Call is established, the initiator
   SHOULD establish at least one Ethernet LSP.  Also, when the last LSP
   associated with a Call is removed, the Call SHOULD be torn down per
   the procedures in [RFC4974].


2.3. Traffic Parameters

   Several types of service attributes are carried in the traffic
   parameters defined in [ETH-TRAFFIC].  These parameters are carried in
   the FLOWSPEC and TSPEC objects as discussed in [ETH-TRAFFIC].  The
   service attributes that are carried are:
      - Bandwidth Profile
      - VLAN CoS Preservation
      - Layer Two (L2) Control Protocol Processing (see Section 2.3.1)

   Ethernet connections established according to this document MUST use
   the traffic parameters defined in [ETH-TRAFFIC] in the FLOWSPEC and
   TSPEC objects.  Additionally, the Switching Granularity field of the
   Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object MUST be set to zero (0).


2.3.1. L2 Control Protocol TLV

   [MEF10.1], [8011.1] and [8011.2] define service attributes that
   impact the layer two (L2) control protocol processing at the ingress
   and egress.  [ETH-TRAFFIC] does not define support for these service
   attributes, but does allow the attributes to be carried in a TLV.
   This section defines the L2 Control Protocol (L2CP) TLV to carry the
   L2 control protocol processing related service attributes.








Berger & Fedyk               Standards Track                    [Page 7]

Internet-Draft  draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-04.txt October 14, 2009


   The format of the L2 Control Protocol (L2CP) TLV is as follows:

       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |             Type=3            |           Length=8            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | IL2CP | EL2CP |                  Reserved                     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      See [ETH-TRAFFIC] for a description of the Type and Length fields.
      Per [ETH-TRAFFIC], the Type field MUST be set to three (3), and
      the Length field MUST be set to eight (8) for the L2CP TLV.

      Ingress Layer 2 Control Processing (IL2CP): 4 bits

         This field controls processing of Layer 2 Control Protocols
         on a receiving interface. Valid usage is service specific,
         see [MEF10.1], [8011.1] and [8011.2].

         Permitted values are:

         Value  Description           Reference
         -----  -----------           ---------
           0    Reserved
           1    Discard/Block         [MEF10.1], [8011.1] and [8011.2]
           2    Peer/Process          [MEF10.1], [8011.1] and [8011.2]
           3    Pass to EVC/Pass      [MEF10.1], [8011.1] and [8011.2]
           4    Peer and Pass to EVC  [MEF10.1]

      Egress Layer 2 Control Processing (EL2CP): 4 bits

         This field controls processing of Layer 2 Control Protocols on
         a transmitting interface.  When MEF services are used a value
         of 1 MUST be used, other valid usage is service specific, see
         [8011.1] and [8011.2].

         Permitted values are:

         Value  Description             Reference
         -----  -----------             ---------
           0    Reserved
           1    Based on IL2CP Value    [MEF10.1]
           2    Generate                [8011.1] and [8011.2]
           3    None                    [8011.1] and [8011.2]
           4    Reserved





Berger & Fedyk               Standards Track                    [Page 8]

Internet-Draft  draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-04.txt October 14, 2009


      Reserved: 24 bits

         This field is reserved. It MUST be set to zero on transmission
         and MUST be ignored on receipt. This field SHOULD be passed
         unmodified by transit nodes.

   Ethernet connections established according to this document MUST
   include the L2CP TLV in the [ETH-TRAFFIC] traffic parameters carried
   in the FLOWSPEC and TSPEC objects.


2.4. Bundling and VLAN Identification

   The control of bundling and listing of VLAN identifiers is only
   supported for EVPL services.  EVPL service specific details are
   provided in Section 4.


3. EPL Service

   Both [MEF6] and [G.8011.1] define an Ethernet Private Line (EPL)
   service. In the words of [G.8011.1], EPL services carry "Ethernet
   characteristic information over dedicated bandwidth, point-to-point
   connections, provided by SDH, ATM, MPLS, PDH, ETY or OTH server layer
   networks."  [G.8011.1] defines two types of Ethernet Private Line
   (EPL) services.  Both types present a service where all data
   presented on a port is transported to the corresponding connect port.
   The types differ in that EPL type 1 service operates at the MAC frame
   layer, while EPL type 2 service operates at the line (e.g., 8B/10B)
   encoding layer. [MEF6] only defines one type of EPL service, and it
   matches [G.8011.1] EPL type 1 service.  Signaling for LSPs that
   support both types of EPL services are detailed below.


3.1. EPL Service Parameters

   Signaling for the EPL service types only differ in the LSP Encoding
   Type used. The LSP Encoding Type used for each are:

      EPL Service     LSP Encoding Type
      -----------     -----------------
      Type 1/MEF      Ethernet (2) [RFC3471]
      Type 2          Line (e.g., 8B/10B) [This document] (TBA by IANA)








Berger & Fedyk               Standards Track                    [Page 9]

Internet-Draft  draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-04.txt October 14, 2009


   The other LSP parameters specific to EPL Service are:

      Parameter       Value
      --------------  -----
      Switching Type  DCSC          [GMPLS-EXT]
      G-PID           Ethernet (33) [RFC3471]

   The parameters defined in this section MUST be used when establishing
   and controlling LSPs that provide EPL service type Ethernet
   switching.  The procedures defined in Section 2 and the other
   procedures defined in [RFC3473] for the establishment and management
   of bidirectional LSPs MUST be followed when establishing and
   controlling LSPs that provide EPL service type Ethernet switching.


4. EVPL Service

   EVPL service is defined within the context of both [G.8011.2] and
   [MEF6]. EVPL service allows for multiple Ethernet connections per
   port, each of which supports a specific set of VLAN IDs. The service
   attributes identify different forms of EVPL services, e.g., bundled
   or unbundled.  Independent of the different forms, LSPs supporting
   EVPL Ethernet type switching are signaled using the same mechanisms
   to communicate the one or more VLAN IDs associated with a particular
   LSP (Ethernet connection).

   The relevant [RFC3471] parameter values that MUST be used for EVPL
   connections are:

      Parameter         Value
      --------------    -----
      Switching Type    EVPL     [This document] (TBA by IANA)
      LSP Encoding Type Ethernet (2)
      G-PID             Ethernet (33)

   As with EPL, the procedures defined in Section 2 and the other
   procedures defined in [RFC3473] for the establishment and management
   of bidirectional LSPs MUST be followed when establishing and
   controlling LSPs that provide EVPL service type Ethernet switching.

   LSPs that provide EVPL service type Ethernet switching MUST use the
   EVPL Generalized Label Format per Section 4.1, and the Generalized
   Channel_Set Label Objects per [GMPLS-EXT].  A notable implication of
   bundled EVPL services and carrying multiple VLAN IDs is that a Path
   message may grow to be larger than a single (fragmented or non-
   fragmented) IP packet.  The basic approach to solving this is to
   allow for multiple LSPs which are associated with a single call, see
   Section 2.2.  The specifics of this approach are describe below in



Berger & Fedyk               Standards Track                   [Page 10]

Internet-Draft  draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-04.txt October 14, 2009


   Section 4.4.


4.1. EVPL Generalized Label Format

   Bundled EVPL services require the use of a service specific label,
   called the EVPL Generalized Label. For consistency, Non-bundled EVPL
   services also use the same label.

   The format for the Generalized Label (Label Type value 2) used with
   EVPL services is:

      0                   1
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | Rsvd  |        VLAN ID        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Reserved: 4 bits

         This field is reserved. It MUST be set to zero on transmission
         and MUST be ignored on receipt. This field SHOULD be passed
         unmodified by transit nodes.

      VLAN ID: 12 bits

         A VLAN identifier.


4.2. Egress VLAN ID Control and VLAN ID preservation

   When an EVPL service is not configured for both bundling and VLAN ID
   preservation, [MEF6] allows VLAN ID mapping.  In particular,  the
   single VLAN ID used at the incoming interface of the ingress may be
   mapped to a different VLAN ID at the outgoing interface at the egress
   UNI.  Such mapping MUST be requested and signaled based on the
   explicit label control mechanism defined in [RFC3473] and clarified
   in [RFC4003].

   When the explicit label control mechanism is not used, VLAN IDs MUST
   be preserved, i.e., not modified, across an LSP.










Berger & Fedyk               Standards Track                   [Page 11]

Internet-Draft  draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-04.txt October 14, 2009


4.3. Single Call - Single LSP

   For simplicity in management, a single LSP SHOULD be used for each
   EVPL type LSP whose Path and Resv messages fit within a single
   unfragmented IP packet.  This allows the reuse of all standard LSP
   modification procedures.  Of particular note is the modification of
   the VLAN IDs associated with the Ethernet connection.  Specifically,
   [GMPLS-EXT], make-before-break procedures SHOULD be used to modify
   the Channel_Set LABEL object.


4.4. Single Call - Multiple LSPs

   Multiple LSPs MAY be used to support an EVPL service connection.  All
   such LSPs MUST be established within the same call and follow call
   related procedures, see Section 2.2.  The primary purpose of multiple
   LSPs is to support the case where the related objects result in a
   Path message being larger than a single unfragmented IP packet.

   When using multiple LSPs, all LSPs associated with the same call /
   EVPL connection MUST be signaled with the same LSP objects with the
   exception of the SENDER_TEMPLATE, SESSION and label related objects.
   All such LSPs SHOULD share resources.  When using multiple LSPs, VLAN
   IDs MAY be added to the EVPL connection using either a new LSP or
   make-before-break procedures, see [RFC3209].  Make-before-break
   procedures on individual LSPs SHOULD be used to remove VLAN IDs.

   To change other service parameters it is necessary to resignal all
   LSPs associated with the call via make-before-break procedures.


5. IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to administer assignment of new values for
   namespaces defined in this document and summarized in this section.


5.1. Endpoint ID Attributes TLV

   Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the assignment in the
   "CALL_ATTRIBUTES TLV Space" section of the "RSVP TE Parameters"
   registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-
   parameters:








Berger & Fedyk               Standards Track                   [Page 12]

Internet-Draft  draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-04.txt October 14, 2009


   Type  Name         Reference
   ----  -----------  ---------
   2*    Endpoint ID  [This document]

   (*) Suggested value.


5.2. Line LSP Encoding

   Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the assignment in the
   "LSP Encoding Types"  section of the "GMPLS Signaling Parameters"
   registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-
   parameters:

   Value   Type                                 Reference
   -----   ---------------------------          ---------
      14*  Line (e.g., 8B/10B)                 [This document]

   (*) Suggested value.

5.3. Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) Switching Type

   Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the assignment in the
   "Switching Types"  section of the "GMPLS Signaling Parameters"
   registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-
   parameters:

   Value   Type                                      Reference
   -----   ---------------------------               ---------
     30*   Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL)      [This document]

   (*) Suggested value.

   It should be noted that the assigned value should be reflected in
   IANAGmplsSwitchingTypeTC at
   http://www.iana.org/assignments/ianagmplstc-mib.


6. Security Considerations

   This document introduces new message object formats for use in GMPLS
   signaling [RFC3473].  It does not introduce any new signaling
   messages, nor change the relationship between LSRs that are adjacent
   in the control plane. As such, this document introduces no additional
   security considerations.  See [RFC3473] for relevant security
   considerations.





Berger & Fedyk               Standards Track                   [Page 13]

Internet-Draft  draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-04.txt October 14, 2009


7. References

7.1. Normative References

   [ETH-TRAFFIC] Papadimitriou, D., "Ethernet Traffic Parameters,"
                 draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-traffic-parameters,
                 Work in progress.

   [GMPLS-EXT] Berger, L., Fedyk, D., "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Data
                Channel Switching Capable (DCSC) and Channel Set
                Label Extensions",
                draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext, Work in
                Progres.

   [GMPLS-MRN] Papadimitriou, D. et al, "Generalized Multi-Protocol
               Label Switching (GMPLS) Protocol Extensions for
               Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks (MLN/MRN)",
               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-extensions,
               Work in progress.

   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
             Requirement Levels," RFC 2119.

   [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T.,
             Srinivasan, V. and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions
             to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.

   [RFC3471] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
             Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description",
             RFC 3471, January 2003.

   [RFC3473] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
             Switching (GMPLS) Signaling - Resource ReserVation
             Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions",
             RFC 3473, January 2003.

   [RFC4003] Berger, L., "GMPLS Signaling Procedure for Egress
             Control", RFC 4003, February 2005.

   [RFC4974] Papadimitriou, D., Farrel, A. "Generalized MPLS
             (GMPLS) RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in support of Calls",
             RFC 4974, August 2007.









Berger & Fedyk               Standards Track                   [Page 14]

Internet-Draft  draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-04.txt October 14, 2009


7.2. Informative References

   [G.8011]         ITU-T G.8011/Y.1307, "Ethernet over Transport
                    Ethernet services framework", August 2004.

   [G.8011.1]       ITU-T G.G.8011.1/Y.1307.1, "Ethernet private
                    line service", August 2004.

   [G.8011.2]       ITU-T G.8011.2/Y.1307.2, "Ethernet virtual
                    private line service", September 2005.

   [GMPLS-MEF-UNI]  Berger, L., Fedyk, D., "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
                    Support For Metro Ethernet Forum and G.8011
                    User-Network Interface (UNI)",
                    draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni, Work in Progress.

   [MEF6]           The Metro Ethernet Forum, "Ethernet Services
                    Definitions - Phase I", MEF 6, June 2004

   [MEF10.1]        The Metro Ethernet Forum, "Ethernet Services
                    Attributes Phase 2", MEF 10.1, November 2006.

   [MEF11]          The Metro Ethernet Forum , "User Network
                    Interface (UNI) Requirements and Framework",
                    MEF 11, November 2004.

   [RFC4875]        Aggarwal, R., Papadimitriou, P., Yasukawa, S.,
                    Eds,  "Extensions to Resource Reservation
                    Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for
                    Point-to-Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths
                    (LSPs)", RFC 4875, May 2007.


8. Acknowledgments

   Dimitri Papadimitriou provided substantial textual contributions to
   this document and coauthored earlier versions of this document.

   The authors would like to thank Evelyne Roch, Stephen Shew, and Yoav
   Cohen for their valuable comments.











Berger & Fedyk               Standards Track                   [Page 15]

Internet-Draft  draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-04.txt October 14, 2009


9. Author's Addresses

   Lou Berger
   LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
   Phone: +1-301-468-9228
   Email: lberger@labn.net

   Don Fedyk
   Alcatel-Lucent
   Groton, MA, 01450
   Phone: +1-978-467-5645
   Email: donald.fedyk@alcatel-lucent.com







































Berger & Fedyk               Standards Track                   [Page 16]

Generated on: Wed Oct 14 14:47:45 EDT 2009
