doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 507 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc7074.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc7074.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..af2725a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc7074.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,507 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                         L. Berger
+Request for Comments: 7074                                          LabN
+Updates: 3471, 4202, 4203, 5307                                J. Meuric
+Category: Standards Track                                         Orange
+ISSN: 2070-1721                                            November 2013
+
+
+  Revised Definition of the GMPLS Switching Capability and Type Fields
+
+Abstract
+
+   GMPLS provides control for multiple switching technologies and for
+   hierarchical switching within a technology.  GMPLS routing and
+   signaling use common values to indicate the type of switching
+   technology.  These values are carried in routing protocols via the
+   Switching Capability field, and in signaling protocols via the
+   Switching Type field.  While the values used in these fields are the
+   primary indicators of the technology and hierarchy level being
+   controlled, the values are not consistently defined and used across
+   the different technologies supported by GMPLS.  This document is
+   intended to resolve the inconsistent definition and use of the
+   Switching Capability and Type fields by narrowly scoping the meaning
+   and use of the fields.  This document updates all documents that use
+   the GMPLS Switching Capability and Types fields, in particular RFCs
+   3471, 4202, 4203, and 5307.
+
+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/rfc7074.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Berger & Meuric              Standards Track                    [Page 1]
+
+RFC 7074        GMPLS Switching and Type Fields Revision   November 2013
+
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (c) 2013 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.
+
+1.  Introduction
+
+   Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) provides control
+   for multiple switching technologies.  It also supports hierarchical
+   switching within a technology.  The original GMPLS Architecture, per
+   [RFC3945], included support for five types of switching capabilities.
+   An additional type was also defined in [RFC6002].  The switching
+   types defined in these documents include:
+
+   1. Packet Switch Capable (PSC)
+
+   2. Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC)
+
+   3. Time-Division Multiplex Capable (TDM)
+
+   4. Lambda Switch Capable (LSC)
+
+   5. Fiber-Switch Capable (FSC)
+
+   6. Data Channel Switching Capable (DCSC)
+
+   Support for the original types was defined for routing in [RFC4202],
+   [RFC4203], and [RFC5307], where the types were represented in the
+   Switching Capability (Switching Cap) field.  In general, hierarchy
+   within a type is addressed in a type-specific fashion, and a single
+   Switching Capability field value is defined per type.  The exception
+   to this is PSC, which was assigned four values to indicate four
+   levels of hierarchy: PSC-1, PSC-2, PSC-3, and PSC-4.  The same values
+   used in routing are defined for signaling in [RFC3471], and are
+   carried in the Switching Type field.  Following the IANA registry, we
+   refer to the values used in the routing Switching Capability field
+   and signaling Switching Type field as Switching Types.
+
+
+
+
+Berger & Meuric              Standards Track                    [Page 2]
+
+RFC 7074        GMPLS Switching and Type Fields Revision   November 2013
+
+
+   In general, a Switching Type does not indicate a specific data-plane
+   technology; this needs to be inferred from context.  For example,
+   L2SC was defined to cover Ethernet and ATM, and TDM was defined to
+   cover both SONET/SDH [RFC4606] and G.709 [RFC4328].  The basic
+   assumption was that different technologies of the same type would
+   never operate within the same control, i.e., signaling and routing
+   domains.
+
+   The past approach in assignment of Switching Types has proven to be
+   problematic from two perspectives.  The first issue is that some
+   examples of switching technologies have different levels of switching
+   that can be performed within the same technology.  For example, there
+   are multiple types of Ethernet switching that may occur within a
+   provider network.  The second issue is that the Switching Capability
+   field value is used in Interior Gateway Protocols (IGPs) to indicate
+   the format of the Switching Capability-specific information (SCSI)
+   field, and that an implicit mapping of type to SCSI format is
+   impractical for implementations that support multiple switching
+   technologies.  These issues led to the introduction of two new types
+   for Ethernet in [RFC6004] and [RFC6060], namely:
+
+      7. Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL)
+
+      8. 802_1 PBB-TE (Provider Backbone Bridge Traffic Engineering)
+
+   An additional value is also envisioned to be assigned in support of
+   G.709v3 by [GMPLS-G709] in order to disambiguate the format of the
+   SCSI field.
+
+   While a common representation of hierarchy levels within a switching
+   technology certainly fits the design objectives of GMPLS, the
+   definition of multiple PSC Switching Types has also proven to be of
+   little value.  Notably, there are no known uses of PSC-2, PSC-3, and
+   PSC-4.
+
+   This document proposes to resolve such inconsistent definitions and
+   uses of the Switching Types by reducing the scope of the related
+   fields and narrowing their use.  In particular, this document
+   deprecates the use of the Switching Types as an identifier of
+   hierarchy levels within a switching technology and limits its use to
+   the identification of a per-switching technology SCSI field format.
+
+   This document updates all documents that use the GMPLS Switching
+   Capability and Switching Type fields, in particular RFCs 3471, 4202,
+   4203, and 5307.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Berger & Meuric              Standards Track                    [Page 3]
+
+RFC 7074        GMPLS Switching and Type Fields Revision   November 2013
+
+
+1.1.  Current Switching Type Definition
+
+   The Switching Type values are carried in both routing and signaling
+   protocols.  Values are identified in IANA's "Generalized Multi-
+   Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters" registry,
+   which is currently located at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/
+   gmpls-sig-parameters/>.
+
+   For routing, a common information element is defined to carry
+   Switching Type values for both OSPF and IS-IS routing protocols in
+   [RFC4202].  Per [RFC4202], Switching Type values are carried in a
+   Switching Capability (Switching Cap) field in an Interface Switching
+   Capability Descriptor.  This information shares a common formatting
+   in both OSPF as defined by [RFC4203] and in IS-IS as defined by
+   [RFC5307]:
+
+       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
+      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+      | Switching Cap |   Encoding    |           Reserved            |
+      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+                                     ...
+      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+      |        Switching Capability-specific information              |
+      |                  (variable)                                   |
+      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+
+      ...
+
+      The content of the Switching Capability-specific information field
+      depends on the value of the Switching Capability field.
+
+   Similarly, the Switching Type field is defined as part of a common
+   format for use by GMPLS signaling protocols in [RFC3471] and is used
+   by [RFC3473]:
+
+       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
+      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+      | LSP Enc. Type |Switching Type |             G-PID             |
+      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+
+      Switching Type: 8 bits
+
+         Indicates the type of switching that should be performed on a
+         particular link.  This field is needed for links that advertise
+         more than one type of switching capability.  This field should
+
+
+
+
+Berger & Meuric              Standards Track                    [Page 4]
+
+RFC 7074        GMPLS Switching and Type Fields Revision   November 2013
+
+
+         map to one of the values advertised for the corresponding link
+         in the routing Switching Capability Descriptor ...
+
+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.  Revised Switching Type Definition
+
+   This document modifies the definition of Switching Type.  The
+   definitions are slightly different for routing and signaling and are
+   described in the following sections.
+
+2.1.  Routing -- Switching Cap Field
+
+   For routing [RFC4202] [RFC4203] [RFC5307], the following definition
+   should be used for Switching Cap field:
+
+      The Switching Cap field indicates the type of switching being
+      advertised via GMPLS Switching Type values.  A different Switching
+      Type value SHOULD be used for each data-plane technology, even
+      when those technologies share the same type of multiplexing or
+      switching.  For example, Time Division Multiplexing (TDM)
+      technologies that have different multiplexing structures, such as
+      Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) [G.707] and Optical Transport
+      Network (OTN) [G.709], should use two different Switching Types.
+
+      As the format of the Switching Capability-specific information
+      field is dependent on the value of this field, a different
+      Switching Type value MUST be used to differentiate between
+      different Switching Capability-specific information field formats.
+
+      This definition does not modify the format of the Interface
+      Switching Capability Descriptor.
+
+   Note that from a practical standpoint, this means that any time a new
+   switching technology might use a different Switching Capability-
+   specific information field format, a new Switching Type SHOULD be
+   used.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Berger & Meuric              Standards Track                    [Page 5]
+
+RFC 7074        GMPLS Switching and Type Fields Revision   November 2013
+
+
+2.2.  Signaling -- Switching Type Field
+
+   For signaling [RFC3471], which is used by [RFC3473], the following
+   definition should be used for the Switching Type field:
+
+      Indicates the type of switching that should be performed on a
+      particular link via GMPLS Switching Type values.  This field maps
+      to one of the values advertised for the corresponding link in the
+      routing Switching Capability Descriptor, see [RFC4203] and
+      [RFC5307].
+
+   Note that from a practical standpoint, there is no change in the
+   definition of this field.
+
+2.3.  Assigned Switching Types
+
+   This document deprecates the following Switching Types:
+
+      Value                 Name
+        2       Packet-Switch Capable-2 (PSC-2)
+        3       Packet-Switch Capable-3 (PSC-3)
+        4       Packet-Switch Capable-4 (PSC-4)
+
+      These values SHOULD be treated as unsupported types and, in the
+      case of signaling, processed according to Section 2.1.1 of
+      [RFC3473].
+
+3.  Compatibility
+
+   For existing implementations, the primary impact of this document is
+   deprecating the use of PSC-2, 3, and 4.  At the time of publication,
+   there are no known deployments (or even implementations) that make
+   use of these values, so there are no compatibility issues for current
+   routing and signaling implementations.
+
+4.  Security Considerations
+
+   This document impacts the values carried in a single field in
+   signaling and routing protocols.  As no new protocol formats or
+   mechanisms are defined, there are no particular security implications
+   raised by this document.
+
+   For a general discussion on MPLS- and GMPLS-related security issues,
+   see the MPLS/GMPLS security framework [RFC5920].
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Berger & Meuric              Standards Track                    [Page 6]
+
+RFC 7074        GMPLS Switching and Type Fields Revision   November 2013
+
+
+5.  IANA Considerations
+
+   IANA has deprecated some values and redefined the related values in
+   the "IANA-GMPLS-TC-MIB" definitions.  In particular, the Switching
+   Types portion of the "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
+   (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters" registry been revised to read:
+
+      Switching Types
+
+         Registration Procedures
+
+      Standards Action
+
+         Reference
+                 [RFC3471][RFC4328][This Document]
+
+          Value                  Name                  Reference
+            0    Unassigned
+            1    Packet-Switch Capable-1 (PSC-1)       [RFC3471]
+            2    Deprecated                            [This Document]
+            3    Deprecated                            [This Document]
+            4    Deprecated                            [This Document]
+          5-29   Unassigned
+           30    Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL)  [RFC6004]
+          31-39  Unassigned
+           40    802_1 PBB-TE                          [RFC6060]
+          41-50  Unassigned
+           51    Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC)         [RFC3471]
+          52-99  Unassigned
+           100   Time-Division-Multiplex Capable (TDM) [RFC3471]
+         101-124 Unassigned
+           125   Data Channel Switching Capable (DCSC) [RFC6002]
+         126-149 Unassigned
+           150   Lambda-Switch Capable (LSC)           [RFC3471]
+         151-199 Unassigned
+           200   Fiber-Switch Capable (FSC)            [RFC3471]
+         201-255 Unassigned
+
+   A parallel change to IANA-GMPLS-TC-MIB was also made. In particular,
+   under IANAGmplsSwitchingTypeTC a reference to this document has been
+   added as item 3.  The following changes have also been made to the
+   related values:
+
+          psc2(2),      -- Deprecated [This Document]
+          psc3(3),      -- Deprecated [This Document]
+          psc4(4),      -- Deprecated [This Document]
+
+
+
+
+
+Berger & Meuric              Standards Track                    [Page 7]
+
+RFC 7074        GMPLS Switching and Type Fields Revision   November 2013
+
+
+6.  Acknowledgments
+
+   We thank John Drake for highlighting the current inconsistent
+   definitions associated with the Switching Capability and Type fields.
+   Daniele Ceccarelli and Adrian Farrel provided valuable feedback on
+   this document.
+
+7.  References
+
+7.1.  Normative References
+
+   [RFC2119]    Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+                Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+   [RFC3471]    Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
+                Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC
+                3471, January 2003.
+
+   [RFC4202]    Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing
+                Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol
+                Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005.
+
+   [RFC4203]    Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions
+                in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
+                (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005.
+
+   [RFC5307]    Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "IS-IS
+                Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol
+                Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 5307, October 2008.
+
+7.2.  Informative References
+
+   [G.707]      ITU-T Recommendation G.707/Y.1322 (2007), "Network node
+                interface for the synchronous digital hierarchy (SDH)".
+
+   [G.709]      ITU-T Recommendation G.709/Y.1331 (2009), "Interfaces
+                for the Optical Transport Network (OTN)".
+
+   [GMPLS-G709] Zhang, F., Li, D., Li, H., Belotti, S., and D.
+                Ceccarelli, "Framework for GMPLS and PCE Control of
+                G.709 Optical Transport Networks", Work in Progress,
+                September 2013.
+
+   [RFC3473]    Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
+                Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation
+                Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC
+                3473, January 2003.
+
+
+
+
+Berger & Meuric              Standards Track                    [Page 8]
+
+RFC 7074        GMPLS Switching and Type Fields Revision   November 2013
+
+
+   [RFC3945]    Mannie, E., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
+                Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004.
+
+   [RFC4328]    Papadimitriou, D., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol
+                Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709
+                Optical Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328, January
+                2006.
+
+   [RFC4606]    Mannie, E. and D. Papadimitriou, "Generalized
+                Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for
+                Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous
+                Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control", RFC 4606, August 2006.
+
+   [RFC5920]    Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
+                Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
+
+   [RFC6002]    Berger, L. and D. Fedyk, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Data
+                Channel Switching Capable (DCSC) and Channel Set Label
+                Extensions", RFC 6002, October 2010.
+
+   [RFC6004]    Berger, L. and D. Fedyk, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
+                Support for Metro Ethernet Forum and G.8011 Ethernet
+                Service Switching", RFC 6004, October 2010.
+
+   [RFC6060]    Fedyk, D., Shah, H., Bitar, N., and A. Takacs,
+                "Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
+                Control of Ethernet Provider Backbone Traffic
+                Engineering (PBB-TE)", RFC 6060, March 2011.
+
+8.  Authors' Addresses
+
+   Lou Berger
+   LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
+   Phone: +1 301 468 9228
+
+   EMail: lberger@labn.net
+
+
+   Julien Meuric
+   Orange
+   Research & Development
+   2, Avenue Pierre Marzin
+   22307 Lannion Cedex -- France
+
+   Phone: +33 2 96 05 28 28
+   EMail: julien.meuric@orange.com
+
+
+
+
+
+Berger & Meuric              Standards Track                    [Page 9]
+