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]