[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04

   MPLS Working Group                                        Zafar Ali
   Internet Draft                                   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   Intended status: Informational                          July 07 2008
   Expires: January 06 2009
   
   
   
     Signaled PID When Multiplexing Multiple Payloads over RSVP-TE LSPs
                draft-ali-mpls-sig-pid-multiplexing-case-00.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
   
      This Internet-Draft will expire on January 6, 2009.
   
   Copyright Notice
   
      Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
   
   Abstract
   
      There are many deployment scenarios where an RSVP-TE LSP carries
      multiple payloads. In these cases, it gets ambiguous on what
      should value should be carried as L3PID in the Label Request
      Object [RFC3209] or G-PID in the Generalized Label Request Object
   
   
   


                         Expires January 2009                 [Page 1]


              draft-ali-mpls-sig-pid-multiplexing-case-00.txt
   
   
      [RFC3471], [RFC3473]. The document propose use of some dedicated
      PID values to cover some typical cases of multiple payload
      carried by the LSP, including that indicates to the egress node
      to ignore signaling to learn payload carried by the LSP.
   
   Table of Contents
   
   
      1. Introduction...............................................2
      2. Some use cases.............................................3
         2.1. PID = 0x0800 (IPv4 Payload)...........................3
         2.2. PID = 0x86DD (IPv6 Payload)...........................3
         2.3. IPv4+IPv6 PID.........................................3
         2.4. Unknown PID...........................................3
      3. Security Considerations....................................4
      4. IANA Considerations........................................4
      5. References.................................................4
         5.1. Normative References..................................4
         5.2. Informative References................................4
      Author's Addresses............................................4
      Intellectual Property Statement...............................4
      Disclaimer of Validity........................................5
   
   1. Introduction
   
      When an RSVP-TE LSP is used to carry multiple payload type (e.g.,
      IPv6 and IPv4 payloads on the same LSP), it gets ambiguous on
      what value should be carried as L3PID in the Label Request Object
      [RFC3209] or G-PID in the Generalized Label Request Object
      [RFC3471], [RFC3473]. It also gets unclear at the receiver that
      source may be multiplexing multiple payloads on the same RSVP-TE
      LSP. The document clarifies some of the use cases where RSVP-TE
      LSP is used to carry multiple payloads and what PID should be
      used during signaling. It also suggests use of an "unknown" PID
      in signaling when PID is completely determined by scope outside
      of signaling.
   
   
   
                      Expires January 2009                     [Page 2]


              draft-ali-mpls-sig-pid-multiplexing-case-00.txt
   
   
      At this stage document is written without use of formal language,
      but the idea is to first see if the WG feedback on the need for
      this work.
   
   2. Some use cases
   
      This section outlines some used cases.
   
   2.1. PID = 0x0800 (IPv4 Payload)
   
      This case is optimized for carrying IPv4 payload such that IPv4
      packets travel without need for any additional information
      (label) to identify the payload, i.e., IPv4 payload is identified
      by the signaling. If multiplexing of additional payloads is
      desired, some in-band data plane mechanisms are needed to
      identify the payload. E.g., if IPv4 and IPv6 payloads are
      multiplexed on the same tunnel, an IPv6 Explicit Null Label or
      some other application label is used to identify IPv6 payload.
   
   2.2. PID = 0x86DD (IPv6 Payload)
   
      This case is optimized for carrying IPv6 payload such that IPv6
      packets travel without need for any additional information
      (label) to identify the payload, i.e., IPv6 payload is identified
      by the signaling. If multiplexing of additional payloads is
      desired, some in-band data plane mechanisms are needed to
      identify the payload. E.g., if IPv4 and IPv6 payloads are
      multiplexed on the same tunnel, an IPv4 Explicit Null Label or
      some other application label is used to identify IPv4 payload.
   
   2.3. IPv4+IPv6 PID
   
      This case is optimized for multiplexing IPv4 and IPv6 payloads
      such that both IPv6 and IPv6 packets travel without need for any
      additional information (label) to identify the payload. In this
      case the Egress node looks at the IP version field to identify
      the payload type (while demultiplexing the traffic). If
      multiplexing of additional payloads or application is desired,
      some in-band data plane mechanisms are needed to identify the
      payload.
   
      L3PID and G-PID code point for this are TBA.
   
   2.4. Unknown PID
   
      This case is the case where payload to be carried by the LSP is
      not known to the Ingress node. Payload identification is obtained
      via some means other than signaling and egress node ignores the
      signaled PID.
                      Expires January 2009                     [Page 3]


              draft-ali-mpls-sig-pid-multiplexing-case-00.txt
   
   
      Unknown PID with code point of 0x00 is already defined for G-PID
      in the Generalized Label Request Object [RFC3471], [RFC3473].
      L3PID code point for this is TBA.
   
   3. Security Considerations
   
      TBA
   
   4. IANA Considerations
   
      TBA
   
   
   5. References
   
   5.1. Normative References
   
      [RFC3209] Awduche D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li T., Srinivasan, V.,
      Swallow, G., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC
      3209, December 2001.
   
      [RFC3471]  Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
      Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471,
      January 2003.
   
      [RFC3473]  Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
      Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
      Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
   
   5.2. Informative References
   
   
   Author's Addresses
   
      Zafar Ali
      Cisco Systems, Inc.
      Email: zali@cisco.com
   
   Intellectual Property Statement
   
      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.
   
                      Expires January 2009                     [Page 4]


              draft-ali-mpls-sig-pid-multiplexing-case-00.txt
   
   
      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.
   
   Disclaimer of Validity
   
      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, THE
      IETF TRUST 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.
   
   Copyright Statement
   
      Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
   
      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.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
                      Expires January 2009                     [Page 5]
   

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.123, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/