Tech-invite3GPPspaceIETF RFCsSIP
93929190898887868584838281807978777675747372717069686766656463626160595857565554535251504948474645444342414039383736353433323130292827262524232221201918171615141312111009080706050403020100
in Index   Prev   Next

RFC 6370

MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Identifiers

Pages: 17
Proposed Standard

Top   ToC   RFC6370 - Page 1
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                          M. Bocci
Request for Comments: 6370                                Alcatel-Lucent
Category: Standards Track                                     G. Swallow
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                    Cisco
                                                                 E. Gray
                                                                Ericsson
                                                          September 2011


              MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Identifiers

Abstract

This document specifies an initial set of identifiers to be used in the Transport Profile of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS-TP). The MPLS-TP requirements (RFC 5654) require that the elements and objects in an MPLS-TP environment are able to be configured and managed without a control plane. In such an environment, many conventions for defining identifiers are possible. This document defines identifiers for MPLS-TP management and Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) functions compatible with IP/ MPLS conventions. This document is a product of a joint Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) / International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) effort to include an MPLS Transport Profile within the IETF MPLS and Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) architectures to support the capabilities and functionalities of a packet transport network as defined by the ITU-T. Status of This Memo This is an Internet Standards Track document. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741. Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6370.
Top   ToC   RFC6370 - Page 2
Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ....................................................3 1.1. Terminology ................................................3 1.2. Requirements Language ......................................4 1.3. Notational Conventions .....................................4 2. Named Entities ..................................................5 3. Uniquely Identifying an Operator - the Global_ID ................5 4. Node and Interface Identifiers ..................................6 5. MPLS-TP Tunnel and LSP Identifiers ..............................7 5.1. MPLS-TP Point-to-Point Tunnel Identifiers ..................8 5.2. MPLS-TP LSP Identifiers ....................................9 5.2.1. MPLS-TP Co-Routed Bidirectional LSP Identifiers .....9 5.2.2. MPLS-TP Associated Bidirectional LSP Identifiers ....9 5.3. Mapping to RSVP Signaling .................................10 6. Pseudowire Path Identifiers ....................................11 7. Maintenance Identifiers ........................................13 7.1. Maintenance Entity Group Identifiers ......................13 7.1.1. MPLS-TP Section MEG_IDs ............................13 7.1.2. MPLS-TP LSP MEG_IDs ................................13 7.1.3. Pseudowire MEG_IDs .................................14 7.2. Maintenance Entity Group End Point Identifiers ............14 7.2.1. MPLS-TP Section MEP_IDs ............................14 7.2.2. MPLS-TP LSP_MEP_ID .................................15 7.2.3. MEP_IDs for Pseudowires ............................15 7.3. Maintenance Entity Group Intermediate Point Identifiers ...15 8. Security Considerations ........................................15 9. References .....................................................16 9.1. Normative References ......................................16 9.2. Informative References ....................................17
Top   ToC   RFC6370 - Page 3

1. Introduction

This document specifies an initial set of identifiers to be used in the Transport Profile of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS-TP). The MPLS-TP requirements (RFC 5654 [7]) require that the elements and objects in an MPLS-TP environment are able to be configured and managed without a control plane. In such an environment, many conventions for defining identifiers are possible. This document defines identifiers for MPLS-TP management and OAM functions compatible with IP/MPLS conventions. That is, the identifiers have been chosen to be compatible with existing IP, MPLS, GMPLS, and Pseudowire definitions. This document is a product of a joint Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) / International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) effort to include an MPLS Transport Profile within the IETF MPLS and Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) architectures to support the capabilities and functionalities of a packet transport network as defined by the ITU-T.

1.1. Terminology

AGI: Attachment Group Identifier AII: Attachment Interface Identifier AS: Autonomous System ASN: Autonomous System Number EGP: Exterior Gateway Protocol FEC: Forwarding Equivalence Class GMPLS: Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching IGP: Interior Gateway Protocol LSP: Label Switched Path LSR: Label Switching Router MEG: Maintenance Entity Group MEP: Maintenance Entity Group End Point MIP: Maintenance Entity Group Intermediate Point
Top   ToC   RFC6370 - Page 4
   MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching

   NNI: Network-to-Network Interface

   OAM: Operations, Administration, and Maintenance

   PW: Pseudowire

   RSVP: Resource Reservation Protocol

   RSVP-TE: RSVP Traffic Engineering

   SAII: Source AII

   SPME: Sub-Path Maintenance Entity

   T-PE: Terminating Provider Edge

   TAII: Target AII

1.2. Requirements Language

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 RFC 2119 [1].

1.3. Notational Conventions

All multiple-word atomic identifiers use underscores (_) between the words to join the words. Many of the identifiers are composed of a set of other identifiers. These are expressed by listing the latter identifiers joined with double-colon "::" notation. Where the same identifier type is used multiple times in a concatenation, they are qualified by a prefix joined to the identifier by a dash (-). For example, A1-Node_ID is the Node_ID of a node referred to as A1. The notation defines a preferred ordering of the fields. Specifically, the designation A1 is used to indicate the lower sort order of a field or set of fields and Z9 is used to indicate the higher sort order of the same. The sort is either alphanumeric or numeric depending on the field's definition. Where the sort applies to a group of fields, those fields are grouped with {...}. Note, however, that the uniqueness of an identifier does not depend on the ordering, but rather, upon the uniqueness and scoping of the fields that compose the identifier. Further, the preferred ordering
Top   ToC   RFC6370 - Page 5
   is not intended to constrain protocol designs by dictating a
   particular field sequence (for example, see Section 5.2.1) or even
   what fields appear in which objects (for example, see Section 5.3).

2. Named Entities

In order to configure, operate, and manage a transport network based on the MPLS Transport Profile, a number of entities require identification. Identifiers for the following entities are defined in this document: * Global_ID * Node * Interface * Tunnel * LSP * PW * MEG * MEP * MIP Note that we have borrowed the term "tunnel" from RSVP-TE (RFC 3209 [2]) where it is used to describe an entity that provides a logical association between a source and destination LSR. The tunnel, in turn, is instantiated by one or more LSPs, where the additional LSPs are used for protection or re-grooming of the tunnel.

3. Uniquely Identifying an Operator - the Global_ID

The Global_ID is defined to uniquely identify an operator. RFC 5003 [3] defines a globally unique Attachment Interface Identifier (AII). That AII is composed of three parts: a Global_ID that uniquely identifies an operator, a prefix, and, finally, an attachment circuit identifier. We have chosen to use that Global ID for MPLS-TP. Quoting from RFC 5003, Section 3.2: The global ID can contain the 2-octet or 4-octet value of the provider's Autonomous System Number (ASN). It is expected that the global ID will be derived from the globally unique ASN of the
Top   ToC   RFC6370 - Page 6
      autonomous system hosting the PEs containing the actual AIIs.  The
      presence of a global ID based on the operator's ASN ensures that
      the AII will be globally unique.

   A Global_ID is an unsigned 32-bit value and MUST be derived from a
   4-octet AS number assigned to the operator.  Note that 2-octet AS
   numbers have been incorporated in the 4-octet by placing the 2-octet
   AS number in the low-order octets and setting the two high-order
   octets to zero.

   ASN 0 is reserved and cannot be assigned to an operator.  An
   identifier containing a Global_ID of zero means that no Global_ID is
   specified.  Note that a Global_ID of zero is limited to entities
   contained within a single operator and MUST NOT be used across an
   NNI.

   The Global_ID is used solely to provide a globally unique context for
   other MPLS-TP identifiers.  While the AS number used in the Global_ID
   MUST be one that the operator is entitled to use, the use of the
   Global_ID is not related to the use of the ASN in protocols such as
   BGP.

4. Node and Interface Identifiers

An LSR requires identification of the node itself and of its interfaces. An interface is the attachment point to a server (sub-)layer, e.g., MPLS-TP section or MPLS-TP tunnel. We call the identifier associated with a node a "Node Identifier" (Node_ID). The Node_ID is a unique 32-bit value assigned by the operator within the scope of a Global_ID. The structure of the Node_ID is operator-specific and is outside the scope of this document. However, the value zero is reserved and MUST NOT be used. Where IPv4 addresses are used, it may be convenient to use the Node's IPv4 loopback address as the Node_ID; however, the Node_ID does not need to have any association with the IPv4 address space used in the operator's IGP or EGP. Where IPv6 addresses are used exclusively, a 32-bit value unique within the scope of a Global_ID is assigned. An LSR can support multiple layers (e.g., hierarchical LSPs) and the Node_ID belongs to the multiple-layer context, i.e., it is applicable to all LSPs or PWs that originate on, have an intermediate point on, or terminate on the node. In situations where a Node_ID needs to be globally unique, this is accomplished by prefixing the identifier with the operator's Global_ID.
Top   ToC   RFC6370 - Page 7
   The term "interface" is used for the attachment point to an MPLS-TP
   section.  Within the context of a particular node, we call the
   identifier associated with an interface an "Interface Number"
   (IF_Num).  The IF_Num is a 32-bit unsigned integer assigned by the
   operator and MUST be unique within the scope of a Node_ID.  The
   IF_Num value 0 has special meaning (see Section 7.3, MIP Identifiers)
   and MUST NOT be used to identify an MPLS-TP interface.

   Note that IF_Num has no relation with the ifNum object defined in RFC
   2863 [8].  Further, no mapping is mandated between IF_Num and ifIndex
   in RFC 2863.

   An "Interface Identifier" (IF_ID) identifies an interface uniquely
   within the context of a Global_ID.  It is formed by concatenating the
   Node_ID with the IF_Num.  That is, an IF_ID is a 64-bit identifier
   formed as Node_ID::IF_Num.

   This convention was chosen to allow compatibility with GMPLS.  The
   GMPLS signaling functional description [4] requires interface
   identification.  GMPLS allows three formats for the Interface_ID.
   The third format consists of an IPv4 address plus a 32-bit unsigned
   integer for the specific interface.  The format defined for MPLS-TP
   is consistent with this format, but uses the Node_ID instead of an
   IPv4 address.

   If an IF_ID needs to be globally unique, this is accomplished by
   prefixing the identifier with the operator's Global_ID.

   Note that MPLS-TP supports hierarchical sections.  The attachment
   point to an MPLS-TP section at any (sub-)layer requires a node-unique
   IF_Num.

5. MPLS-TP Tunnel and LSP Identifiers

In MPLS, the actual transport of packets is provided by Label Switched Paths (LSPs). A transport service may be composed of multiple LSPs. Further, the LSPs providing a service may change over time due to protection and restoration events. In order to clearly identify the service, we use the term "MPLS-TP Tunnel" or simply "tunnel" for a service provided by (for example) a working LSP and protected by a protection LSP. The "Tunnel Identifier" (Tunnel_ID) identifies the transport service and provides a stable binding to the client in the face of changes in the data-plane LSPs used to provide the service due to protection or restoration events. This section defines an MPLS-TP Tunnel_ID to uniquely identify a tunnel, and an MPLS-TP LSP Identifier (LSP_ID) to uniquely identify an LSP associated with a tunnel.
Top   ToC   RFC6370 - Page 8
   For the case where multiple LSPs (for example) are used to support a
   single service with a common set of end points, using the Tunnel_ID
   allows for a trivial mapping between the server and client layers,
   providing a common service identifier that may be either defined by
   or used by the client.

   Note that this usage is not intended to constrain protection schemes,
   and may be used to identify any service (protected or unprotected)
   that may appear to the client as a single service attachment point.
   Keeping the Tunnel_ID consistent across working and protection LSPs
   is a useful construct currently employed within GMPLS.  However, the
   Tunnel_ID for a protection LSP MAY differ from that used by its
   corresponding working LSP.

5.1. MPLS-TP Point-to-Point Tunnel Identifiers

At each end point, a tunnel is uniquely identified by the end point's Node_ID and a locally assigned tunnel number. Specifically, a "Tunnel Number" (Tunnel_Num) is a 16-bit unsigned integer unique within the context of the Node_ID. The motivation for each end point having its own tunnel number is to allow a compact form for the MEP_ID. See Section 7.2.2. Having two tunnel numbers also serves to simplify other signaling (e.g., setup of associated bidirectional tunnels as described in Section 5.3). The concatenation of the two end point identifiers serves as the full identifier. Using the A1/Z9 convention, the format of a Tunnel_ID is: A1-{Node_ID::Tunnel_Num}::Z9-{Node_ID::Tunnel_Num} Where the Tunnel_ID needs to be globally unique, this is accomplished by using globally unique Node_IDs as defined above. Thus, a globally unique Tunnel_ID becomes: A1-{Global_ID::Node_ID::Tunnel_Num}::Z9-{Global_ID::Node_ID:: Tunnel_Num} When an MPLS-TP Tunnel is configured, it MUST be assigned a unique IF_ID at each end point. As usual, the IF_ID is composed of the local Node_ID concatenated with a 32-bit IF_Num.
Top   ToC   RFC6370 - Page 9

5.2. MPLS-TP LSP Identifiers

This section defines identifiers for MPLS-TP co-routed bidirectional and associated bidirectional LSPs. Note that MPLS-TP Sub-Path Maintenance Entities (SPMEs), as defined in RFC 5921 [9], are also LSPs and use these same forms of identifiers.

5.2.1. MPLS-TP Co-Routed Bidirectional LSP Identifiers

A co-routed bidirectional LSP can be uniquely identified by a single LSP number within the scope of an MPLS-TP Tunnel_ID. Specifically, an LSP Number (LSP_Num) is a 16-bit unsigned integer unique within the Tunnel_ID. Thus, the format of an MPLS-TP co-routed bidirectional LSP_ID is: A1-{Node_ID::Tunnel_Num}::Z9-{Node_ID::Tunnel_Num}::LSP_Num Note that the uniqueness of identifiers does not depend on the A1/Z9 sort ordering. Thus, the identifier: Z9-{Node_ID::Tunnel_Num}::A1-{Node_ID::Tunnel_Num}::LSP_Num is synonymous with the one above. At the data-plane level, a co-routed bidirectional LSP is composed of two unidirectional LSPs traversing the same links in opposite directions. Since a co-routed bidirectional LSP is provisioned or signaled as a single entity, a single LSP_Num is used for both unidirectional LSPs. The unidirectional LSPs can be referenced by the identifiers: A1-Node_ID::A1-Tunnel_Num::LSP_Num::Z9-Node_ID and Z9-Node_ID::Z9-Tunnel_Num::LSP_Num::A1-Node_ID, respectively. Where the LSP_ID needs to be globally unique, this is accomplished by using globally unique Node_IDs as defined above. Thus, a globally unique LSP_ID becomes: A1-{Global_ID::Node_ID::Tunnel_Num}::Z9-{Global_ID:: Node_ID::Tunnel_Num}::LSP_Num

5.2.2. MPLS-TP Associated Bidirectional LSP Identifiers

For an associated bidirectional LSP, each of the unidirectional LSPs from A1 to Z9 and Z9 to A1 require LSP_Nums. Each unidirectional LSP is uniquely identified by a single LSP number within the scope of the ingress's Tunnel_Num. Specifically, an "LSP Number" (LSP_Num) is a
Top   ToC   RFC6370 - Page 10
   16-bit unsigned integer unique within the scope of the ingress's
   Tunnel_Num.  Thus, the format of an MPLS-TP associated bidirectional
   LSP_ID is:

      A1-{Node_ID::Tunnel_Num::LSP_Num}::
      Z9-{Node_ID::Tunnel_Num::LSP_Num}

   At the data-plane level, an associated bidirectional LSP is composed
   of two unidirectional LSPs between two nodes in opposite directions.
   The unidirectional LSPs may be referenced by the identifiers:

      A1-Node_ID::A1-Tunnel_Num::A1-LSP_Num::Z9-Node_ID and

      Z9-Node_ID::Z9-Tunnel_Num::Z9-LSP_Num::A1-Node_ID, respectively.

   Where the LSP_ID needs to be globally unique, this is accomplished by
   using globally unique Node_IDs as defined above.  Thus, a globally
   unique LSP_ID becomes:

      A1-{Global_ID::Node_ID::Tunnel_Num::LSP_Num}::
      Z9-{Global_ID::Node_ID::Tunnel_Num::LSP_Num}

5.3. Mapping to RSVP Signaling

This section is informative and exists to help understand the structure of the LSP IDs. GMPLS [5] is based on RSVP-TE [2]. This section defines the mapping from an MPLS-TP LSP_ID to RSVP-TE. At this time, RSVP-TE has yet to be extended to accommodate Global_IDs. Thus, a mapping is only made for the network unique form of the LSP_ID and assumes that the operator has chosen to derive its Node_IDs from valid IPv4 addresses. GMPLS and RSVP-TE signaling use a 5-tuple to uniquely identify an LSP within an operator's network. This tuple is composed of a Tunnel End-point Address, Tunnel_ID, Extended Tunnel ID, Tunnel Sender Address, and (RSVP) LSP_ID. RFC 3209 allows some flexibility in how the Extended Tunnel ID is chosen, and a direct mapping is not mandated. One convention that is often used, however, is to populate this field with the same value as the Tunnel Sender Address. The examples below follow that convention. Note that these are only examples.
Top   ToC   RFC6370 - Page 11
   For a co-routed bidirectional LSP signaled from A1 to Z9, the mapping
   to the GMPLS 5-tuple is as follows:

      *  Tunnel End-point Address = Z9-Node_ID

      *  Tunnel_ID = A1-Tunnel_Num

      *  Extended Tunnel_ID = A1-Node_ID

      *  Tunnel Sender Address = A1-Node_ID

      *  (RSVP) LSP_ID = LSP_Num

   An associated bidirectional LSP between two nodes A1 and Z9 consists
   of two unidirectional LSPs, one from A1 to Z9 and one from Z9 to A1.

   In situations where a mapping to the RSVP-TE 5-tuples is required,
   the following mappings are used.  For the A1 to Z9 LSP, the mapping
   would be:

      *  Tunnel End-point Address = Z9-Node_ID

      *  Tunnel_ID = A1-Tunnel_Num

      *  Extended Tunnel_ID = A1-Node_ID

      *  Tunnel Sender Address = A1-Node_ID

      *  (RSVP) LSP_ID = A1-LSP_Num

   Likewise, the Z9 to A1 LSP, the mapping would be:

      *  Tunnel End-point Address = A1-Node_ID

      *  Tunnel_ID = Z9-Tunnel_Num

      *  Extended Tunnel_ID = Z9-Node_ID

      *  Tunnel Sender Address = Z9-Node_ID

      *  (RSVP) LSP_ID = Z9-LSP_Num

6. Pseudowire Path Identifiers

Pseudowire signaling (RFC 4447 [6]) defines two FECs used to signal pseudowires. Of these, the Generalized PWid FEC (type 129) along with AII Type 2 as defined in RFC 5003 [3] fits the identification requirements of MPLS-TP.
Top   ToC   RFC6370 - Page 12
   In an MPLS-TP environment, a PW is identified by a set of identifiers
   that can be mapped directly to the elements required by the
   Generalized PWid FEC (type 129) and AII Type 2.  To distinguish this
   identifier from other Pseudowire Identifiers, we call this a
   Pseudowire Path Identifier (PW_Path_ID).

   The AII Type 2 is composed of three fields.  These are the Global_ID,
   the Prefix, and the AC_ID.  The Global_ID used in this document is
   identical to the Global_ID defined in RFC 5003.  The Node_ID is used
   as the Prefix.  The AC_ID is as defined in RFC 5003.

   To complete the Generalized PWid FEC (type 129), all that is required
   is an Attachment Group Identifier (AGI).  That field is exactly as
   specified in RFC 4447.  A (bidirectional) pseudowire consists of a
   pair of unidirectional LSPs, one in each direction.  Thus, for
   signaling, the Generalized PWid FEC (type 129) has a notion of Source
   AII (SAII) and Target AII (TAII).  These terms are used relative to
   the direction of the LSP, i.e., the SAII is assigned to the end that
   allocates the PW label for a given direction, and the TAII to the
   other end.

   In a purely configured environment, when referring to the entire PW,
   this distinction is not critical.  That is, a Generalized PWid FEC
   (type 129) of AGIa::AIIb::AIIc is equivalent to AGIa::AIIc::AIIb.

   We note that in a signaled environment, the required convention in
   RFC 4447 is that at a particular end point, the AII associated with
   that end point comes first.  The complete PW_Path_ID is:

      AGI::A1-{Global_ID::Node_ID::AC_ID}::
      Z9-{Global_ID::Node_ID::AC_ID}.

   In a signaled environment the LSP from A1 to Z9 would be initiated
   with a label request from A1 to Z9 with the fields of the Generalized
   PWid FEC (type 129) completed as follows:

      AGI = AGI
      SAII = A1-{Global_ID::Node_ID::AC_ID}
      TAII = Z9-{Global_ID::Node_ID::AC_ID}

   The LSP from Z9 to A1 would signaled with:

      AGI = AGI
      SAII = Z9-{Global_ID::Node_ID::AC_ID}
      TAII = A1-{Global_ID::Node_ID::AC_ID}
Top   ToC   RFC6370 - Page 13

7. Maintenance Identifiers

In MPLS-TP, a Maintenance Entity Group (MEG) represents an entity that requires management and defines a relationship between a set of maintenance points. A maintenance point is either a Maintenance Entity Group End Point (MEP), a Maintenance Entity Group Intermediate Point (MIP), or a Pseudowire Segment End Point. Within the context of a MEG, MEPs and MIPs must be uniquely identified. This section defines a means of uniquely identifying Maintenance Entity Groups and Maintenance Entities. It also uniquely defines MEPs and MIPs within the context of a Maintenance Entity Group.

7.1. Maintenance Entity Group Identifiers

Maintenance Entity Group Identifiers (MEG_IDs) are required for MPLS-TP sections, LSPs, and Pseudowires. The formats were chosen to follow the IP-compatible identifiers defined above.

7.1.1. MPLS-TP Section MEG_IDs

MPLS-TP allows a hierarchy of sections. See "MPLS-TP Data Plane Architecture" (RFC 5960 [10]). Sections above layer 0 are MPLS-TP LSPs. These use their MPLS-TP LSP MEG IDs defined in Section 7.1.2. IP-compatible MEG_IDs for MPLS-TP sections at layer 0 are formed by concatenating the two IF_IDs of the corresponding section using the A1/Z9 ordering. For example: A1-IF_ID::Z9-IF_ID Where the Section_MEG_ID needs to be globally unique, this is accomplished by using globally unique Node_IDs as defined above. Thus, a globally unique Section_MEG_ID becomes: A1-{Global_ID::IF_ID}::Z9-{Global_ID::IF_ID}

7.1.2. MPLS-TP LSP MEG_IDs

A MEG pertains to a unique MPLS-TP LSP. IP compatible MEG_IDs for MPLS-TP LSPs are simply the corresponding LSP_IDs; however, the A1/Z9 ordering MUST be used. For bidirectional co-routed LSPs, the format of the LSP_ID is found in Section 5.2.1. For associated bidirectional LSPs, the format is in Section 5.2.2.
Top   ToC   RFC6370 - Page 14
   We note that while the two identifiers are syntactically identical,
   they have different semantics.  This semantic difference needs to be
   made clear.  For instance, if both an MPLS-TP LSP_ID and MPLS-TP LSP
   MEG_IDs are to be encoded in TLVs, different types need to be
   assigned for these two identifiers.

7.1.3. Pseudowire MEG_IDs

For Pseudowires, a MEG pertains to a single PW. The IP-compatible MEG_ID for a PW is simply the corresponding PW_Path_ID; however, the A1/Z9 ordering MUST be used. The PW_Path_ID is described in Section 6. We note that while the two identifiers are syntactically identical, they have different semantics. This semantic difference needs to be made clear. For instance, if both a PW_Path_ID and a PW_MEG_ID are to be encoded in TLVs, different types need to be assigned for these two identifiers.

7.2. Maintenance Entity Group End Point Identifiers

7.2.1. MPLS-TP Section MEP_IDs

IP-compatible MEP_IDs for MPLS-TP sections above layer 0 are their MPLS-TP LSP_MEP_IDs. See Section 7.2.2. IP-compatible MEP_IDs for MPLS-TP sections at layer 0 are simply the IF_IDs of each end of the section. For example, for a section whose MEG_ID is: A1-IF_ID::Z9-IF_ID the Section MEP_ID at A1 would be: A1-IF_ID and the Section MEP_ID at Z9 would be: Z9-IF_ID. Where the Section MEP_ID needs to be globally unique, this is accomplished by using globally unique Node_IDs as defined above. Thus, a globally unique Section MEP_ID becomes: Global_ID::IF_ID.
Top   ToC   RFC6370 - Page 15

7.2.2. MPLS-TP LSP_MEP_ID

In order to automatically generate MEP_IDs for MPLS-TP LSPs, we use the elements of identification that are unique to an end point. This ensures that MEP_IDs are unique for all LSPs within an operator. When Tunnels or LSPs cross operator boundaries, these are made unique by pre-pending them with the operator's Global_ID. The MPLS-TP LSP_MEP_ID is: Node_ID::Tunnel_Num::LSP_Num where the Node_ID is the node in which the MEP is located and Tunnel_Num is the tunnel number unique to that node. In the case of co-routed bidirectional LSPs, the single LSP_Num is used at both ends. In the case of associated bidirectional LSPs, the LSP_Num is the one unique to where the MEP resides. In situations where global uniqueness is required, this becomes: Global_ID::Node_ID::Tunnel_Num::LSP_Num

7.2.3. MEP_IDs for Pseudowires

Like MPLS-TP LSPs, Pseudowire end points (T-PEs) require MEP_IDs. In order to automatically generate MEP_IDs for PWs, we simply use the AGI plus the AII associated with that end of the PW. Thus, a MEP_ID for a Pseudowire T-PE takes the form: AGI::Global_ID::Node_ID::AC_ID where the Node_ID is the node in which the MEP is located and the AC_ID is the AC_ID of the Pseudowire at that node.

7.3. Maintenance Entity Group Intermediate Point Identifiers

For a MIP that is associated with a particular interface, we simply use the IF_ID (see Section 4) of the interfaces that are cross- connected. This allows MIPs to be independently identified in one node where a per-interface MIP model is used. If only a per-node MIP model is used, then one MIP is configured. In this case, the MIP_ID is formed using the Node_ID and an IF_Num of 0.

8. Security Considerations

This document describes an information model and, as such, does not introduce security concerns. Protocol specifications that describe use of this information model, however, may introduce security risks
Top   ToC   RFC6370 - Page 16
   and concerns about authentication of participants.  For this reason,
   the writers of protocol specifications for the purpose of describing
   implementation of this information model need to describe security
   and authentication concerns that may be raised by the particular
   mechanisms defined and how those concerns may be addressed.

   Uniqueness of the identifiers from this document is guaranteed by the
   assigner (e.g., a Global_ID is unique based on the assignment of ASNs
   from IANA and both a Node_ID and an IF_Num are unique based on the
   assignment by an operator).  Failure by an assigner to use unique
   values within the specified scoping for any of the identifiers
   defined herein could result in operational problems.  For example, a
   non-unique MEP value could result in failure to detect a mis-merged
   LSP.

   Protocol specifications that utilize the identifiers defined herein
   need to consider the implications of guessable identifiers and, where
   there is a security implication, SHOULD give advice on how to make
   identifiers less guessable.

9. References

9.1. Normative References

[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [2] 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. [3] Metz, C., Martini, L., Balus, F., and J. Sugimoto, "Attachment Individual Identifier (AII) Types for Aggregation", RFC 5003, September 2007. [4] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, January 2003. [5] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. [6] Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., Smith, T., and G. Heron, "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 4447, April 2006.
Top   ToC   RFC6370 - Page 17

9.2. Informative References

[7] Niven-Jenkins, B., Brungard, D., Betts, M., Sprecher, N., and S. Ueno, "Requirements of an MPLS Transport Profile", RFC 5654, September 2009. [8] McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group MIB", RFC 2863, June 2000. [9] Bocci, M., Bryant, S., Frost, D., Levrau, L., and L. Berger, "A Framework for MPLS in Transport Networks", RFC 5921, July 2010. [10] Frost, D., Bryant, S., and M. Bocci, "MPLS Transport Profile Data Plane Architecture", RFC 5960, August 2010.

Authors' Addresses

Matthew Bocci Alcatel-Lucent Voyager Place, Shoppenhangers Road Maidenhead, Berks SL6 2PJ UK EMail: matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com George Swallow Cisco EMail: swallow@cisco.com Eric Gray Ericsson 900 Chelmsford Street Lowell, Massachussetts 01851-8100 EMail: eric.gray@ericsson.com