Movatterモバイル変換

[RFC Home] [TEXT|PDF|HTML] [Tracker] [IPR] [Errata] [Info page]

PROPOSED STANDARD
Updated by:7274Errata Exist

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) D. Frost, Ed.Request for Comments: 5960 S. Bryant, Ed.Category: Standards Track Cisco SystemsISSN: 2070-1721 M. Bocci, Ed. Alcatel-Lucent August 2010MPLS Transport Profile Data Plane ArchitectureAbstract The Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) is the set of MPLS protocol functions applicable to the construction and operation of packet-switched transport networks. This document specifies the subset of these functions that comprises the MPLS-TP data plane: the architectural layer concerned with the encapsulation and forwarding of packets within an MPLS-TP network. 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.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 inSection 2 of RFC 5741. Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained athttp://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5960.Frost, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]

RFC 5960             MPLS-TP Data Plane Architecture         August 2010Copyright Notice   Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the   document authors.  All rights reserved.   This document is subject toBCP 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 Contents1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31.1.  Scope  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31.2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41.3.  Requirements Language  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42.  MPLS-TP Packet Encapsulation and Forwarding  . . . . . . . . .43.  MPLS-TP Transport Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53.1.  Label Switched Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53.1.1.  LSP Packet Encapsulation and Forwarding  . . . . . . .63.1.2.  LSP Payloads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73.1.3.  LSP Types  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73.2.  Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83.3.  Pseudowires  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94.  MPLS-TP Generic Associated Channel . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105.  Server-Layer Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .116.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .117.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .127.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .127.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14Frost, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 2]

RFC 5960 MPLS-TP Data Plane Architecture August 20101. Introduction The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) is the set of functions that meet the requirements [RFC5654] for the application of MPLS to the construction and operation of packet-switched transport networks. MPLS-based packet-switched transport networks, and the overall architecture of the MPLS-TP, are defined and described in [RFC5921]. It is assumed that the reader is familiar with that document. This document defines the set of functions that comprise the MPLS-TP data plane: the architectural layer concerned with the encapsulation and forwarding of packets within an MPLS-TP network. This layer is based on the data plane architectures for MPLS ([RFC3031] and [RFC3032]) and for pseudowires [RFC3985]. 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 PWE3 architectures to support the capabilities and functionalities of a packet transport network.1.1. Scope This document has the following purposes: o To identify the data plane functions within the MPLS Transport Profile; and o To indicate which of these data plane functions an MPLS-TP implementation is required to support. This document defines the encapsulation and forwarding functions applicable to packets traversing an MPLS-TP Label Switched Path (LSP), pseudowire (PW), or section (seeSection 3 for the definitions of these transport entities). Encapsulation and forwarding functions for packets outside an MPLS-TP LSP, PW, or section, and mechanisms for delivering packets to or from MPLS-TP LSPs, PWs, and sections, are outside the scope of this document.Frost, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]

RFC 5960             MPLS-TP Data Plane Architecture         August 20101.2.  Terminology   Term    Definition   ------- -------------------------------------------   ACH     Associated Channel Header   G-ACh   Generic Associated Channel   GAL     G-ACh Label   LER     Label Edge Router   LSE     Label Stack Entry   LSP     Label Switched Path   LSR     Label Switching Router   MPLS-TP MPLS Transport Profile   OAM     Operations, Administration, and Maintenance   PW      Pseudowire   QoS     Quality of Service   S-PE    PW Switching Provider Edge   T-PE    PW Terminating Provider Edge   TTL     Time To Live   Additional definitions and terminology can be found in [RFC5921] and   [RFC5654].1.3.  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 inRFC 2119 [RFC2119].2.  MPLS-TP Packet Encapsulation and Forwarding   MPLS-TP packet encapsulation and forwarding SHALL operate according   to the MPLS data plane architecture described in [RFC3031] and   [RFC3032] and to the data plane architectures for single-segment   pseudowires and multi-segment pseudowires (seeSection 3.3), except   as noted otherwise in this document.  The MPLS-TP data plane   satisfies the requirements specified in [RFC5654].   Since an MPLS-TP packet is an MPLS packet as defined in [RFC3031] and   [RFC3032], it will have an associated label stack, and the 'push',   'pop', and 'swap' label processing operations specified in those   documents apply.  The label stack represents a hierarchy of Label   Switched Paths (LSPs).  A label is pushed to introduce an additional   level of LSP hierarchy and popped to remove it.  Such an additional   level may be introduced by any pair of LSRs, whereupon they become   adjacent at this new level, and are then known as Label Edge Routers   (LERs) with respect to the new LSP.Frost, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 4]

RFC 5960 MPLS-TP Data Plane Architecture August 2010 In contrast to, for example,Section 3.10 of [RFC3031], support for Internet Protocol (IP) host and router data plane functionality by MPLS-TP interfaces and in MPLS-TP networks is OPTIONAL. MPLS-TP forwarding is based on the label that identifies an LSP or PW. The label value specifies the processing operation to be performed by the next hop at that level of encapsulation. A swap of this label is an atomic operation in which the contents of the packet (after the swapped label) are opaque to the forwarding function. The only event that interrupts a swap operation is Time To Live (TTL) expiry. At an LSR, S-PE, or T-PE, further processing to determine the context of a packet occurs when a swap operation is interrupted by TTL expiry. If the TTL of an LSP label expires, then the label with the S (Bottom of Stack) bit set is inspected to determine if it is a reserved label. If it is a reserved label, the packet is processed according to the rules of that reserved label. For example, if it is a Generic Associated Channel Label (GAL), then it is processed as a packet on the Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh); seeSection 4. If the TTL of a PW expires at an S-PE or T-PE, then the packet is examined to determine if a Generic Associated Channel Header (ACH) is present immediately below the PW label. If so, then the packet is processed as a packet on the G-ACh. Similarly, if a pop operation at an LER exposes a reserved label at the top of the label stack, then the packet is processed according to the rules of that reserved label. If no such exception occurs, the packet is forwarded according to the procedures in [RFC3031] and [RFC3032].3. MPLS-TP Transport Entities The MPLS Transport Profile includes the following data plane transport entities: o Label Switched Paths (LSPs) o sections o pseudowires (PWs)3.1. Label Switched Paths MPLS-TP LSPs are ordinary MPLS LSPs as defined in [RFC3031], except as specifically noted otherwise in this document.Frost, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]

RFC 5960             MPLS-TP Data Plane Architecture         August 20103.1.1.  LSP Packet Encapsulation and Forwarding   Encapsulation and forwarding of packets traversing MPLS-TP LSPs MUST   follow standard MPLS packet encapsulation and forwarding as defined   in [RFC3031], [RFC3032], [RFC5331], and [RFC5332], except as   explicitly stated otherwise in this document.   Data plane Quality of Service capabilities are included in the   MPLS-TP in the form of Traffic Engineered (TE) LSPs [RFC3209] and the   MPLS Differentiated Services (Diffserv) architecture [RFC3270].  Both   E-LSP and L-LSP MPLS Diffserv modes are included.  The Traffic Class   field (formerly the EXP field) of an MPLS label follows the   definition of [RFC5462] and [RFC3270] and MUST be processed according   to the rules specified in those documents.   Except for transient packet reordering that may occur, for example,   during fault conditions, packets are delivered in order on L-LSPs,   and on E-LSPs within a specific ordered aggregate.   The Uniform, Pipe, and Short Pipe Diffserv tunneling and TTL   processing models described in [RFC3270] and [RFC3443] MAY be used   for MPLS-TP LSPs.  Note, however, that support for the Pipe or Short   Pipe models is REQUIRED for typical transport applications in which   the topology and QoS characteristics of the MPLS-TP server layer are   independent of the client layer.  Specific applications MAY place   further requirements on the Diffserv tunneling and TTL processing   models an LSP can use.   Per-platform, per-interface, or other context-specific label space   [RFC5331] MAY be used for MPLS-TP LSPs.  Downstream [RFC3031] or   upstream [RFC5331] label allocation schemes MAY be used for MPLS-TP   LSPs.  The requirements of a particular LSP type may, however,   dictate which label spaces or allocation schemes LSPs of that type   can use.   Equal-Cost Multi-Path (ECMP) load-balancing MUST NOT be performed on   an MPLS-TP LSP.  MPLS-TP LSPs as defined in this document MAY operate   over a server layer that supports load-balancing, but this load-   balancing MUST operate in such a manner that it is transparent to   MPLS-TP.  This does not preclude the future definition of new MPLS-TP   LSP types that have different requirements regarding the use of ECMP   in the server layer.   Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP) MUST be disabled by default on MPLS-TP   LSPs.Frost, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 6]

RFC 5960             MPLS-TP Data Plane Architecture         August 20103.1.2.  LSP Payloads   The MPLS-TP includes support for the following LSP payload types:   o  Network-layer protocol packets (including MPLS-labeled packets)   o  Pseudowire packets   The rules for processing LSP payloads that are network-layer protocol   packets SHALL be as specified in [RFC3032].   The rules for processing LSP payloads that are pseudowire packets   SHALL be as defined in the data plane pseudowire specifications (seeSection 3.3).   The payload of an MPLS-TP LSP may be a packet that itself contains an   MPLS label stack.  This is true, for instance, when the payload is a   pseudowire or an MPLS LSP.  In such cases, the label stack is   contiguous between the MPLS-TP LSP and its payload, and exactly one   LSE in this stack SHALL have the S (Bottom of Stack) bit set to 1.   This behavior reflects best current practice in MPLS but differs   slightly from [RFC3032], which uses the S bit to identify when MPLS   label processing stops and network-layer processing starts.3.1.3.  LSP Types   The MPLS-TP includes the following LSP types:   o  Point-to-point unidirectional   o  Point-to-point associated bidirectional   o  Point-to-point co-routed bidirectional   o  Point-to-multipoint unidirectional   Point-to-point unidirectional LSPs are supported by the basic MPLS   architecture [RFC3031] and are REQUIRED to function in the same   manner in the MPLS-TP data plane, except as explicitly stated   otherwise in this document.   A point-to-point associated bidirectional LSP between LSRs A and B   consists of two unidirectional point-to-point LSPs, one from A to B   and the other from B to A, which are regarded as a pair providing a   single logical bidirectional transport path.Frost, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 7]

RFC 5960             MPLS-TP Data Plane Architecture         August 2010   A point-to-point co-routed bidirectional LSP is a point-to-point   associated bidirectional LSP with the additional constraint that its   two unidirectional component LSPs in each direction follow the same   path (in terms of both nodes and links).  An important property of   co-routed bidirectional LSPs is that their unidirectional component   LSPs share fate.   A point-to-multipoint unidirectional LSP functions in the same manner   in the data plane, with respect to basic label processing and packet-   switching operations, as a point-to-point unidirectional LSP, with   one difference: an LSR may have more than one (egress interface,   outgoing label) pair associated with the LSP, and any packet it   transmits on the LSP is transmitted out all associated egress   interfaces.  Point-to-multipoint LSPs are described in [RFC4875] and   [RFC5332].  TTL processing and exception handling for point-to-   multipoint LSPs is the same as for point-to-point LSPs and is   described inSection 2.3.2.  Sections   Two MPLS-TP LSRs are considered to be topologically adjacent at a   particular layer n >= 0 of the MPLS-TP LSP hierarchy if there exists   connectivity between them at the next lowest network layer, and if   there is no MPLS layer processing at layer n between the two LSRs   (other than at the LSRs themselves).  Such connectivity, if it   exists, will be either an MPLS-TP LSP (if n > 0) or a data-link   provided by the underlying server layer network (if n = 0), and is   referred to as an MPLS-TP section at layer n of the MPLS-TP LSP   hierarchy.  Thus, the links traversed by a layer n+1 MPLS-TP LSP are   layer n MPLS-TP sections.  Such an LSP is referred to as a client of   the section layer, and the section layer is referred to as the server   layer with respect to its clients.   The MPLS label stack associated with an MPLS-TP section at layer n   consists of n labels, in the absence of stack optimization   mechanisms.  In order for two LSRs to exchange non-IP MPLS-TP control   packets over a section, an additional label, the G-ACh Label (GAL)   (seeSection 4) MUST appear at the bottom of the label stack.   An MPLS-TP section may provide one or more of the following types of   service to its client layer:   o  Point-to-point bidirectional   o  Point-to-point unidirectional   o  Point-to-multipoint unidirectionalFrost, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 8]

RFC 5960             MPLS-TP Data Plane Architecture         August 2010   The manner in which a section provides such a service is outside the   scope of the MPLS-TP.   An LSP of any of the types listed inSection 3.1.3 may serve as a   section for a client-layer transport entity as long as it supports   the type of service the client requires.   A section MUST provide a means of identifying the type of payload it   carries.  If the section is a data-link, link-specific mechanisms   such as a protocol type indication in the data-link header MAY be   used.  If the section is an LSP, this information MAY be implied by   the LSP label or, if the LSP payload is MPLS-labeled, by the setting   of the S bit.  Additional labels MAY also be used if necessary to   distinguish different payload types; see [RFC5921] for examples and   further discussion.3.3.  Pseudowires   The data plane architectures for single-segment pseudowires [RFC3985]   and multi-segment pseudowires [RFC5659] are included in the MPLS-TP.   Data plane processing procedures for pseudowires are defined and   described in a number of IETF documents.  Some example pseudowire   data plane procedures include:   o  Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for Use over      an MPLS PSN [RFC4385]   o  Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Ethernet over MPLS Networks      [RFC4448]   o  Structure-Agnostic Time Division Multiplexing (TDM) over Packet      (SAToP) [RFC4553]   o  Encapsulation Methods for Transport of PPP/High-Level Data Link      Control (HDLC) over MPLS Networks [RFC4618]   o  Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Frame Relay over      Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Networks [RFC4619]   o  Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Asynchronous Transfer Mode      (ATM) over MPLS Networks [RFC4717]   o  Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Asynchronous Transfer      Mode (ATM) Transparent Cell Transport Service [RFC4816]   o  Synchronous Optical Network/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SONET/      SDH) Circuit Emulation over Packet (CEP) [RFC4842]Frost, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 9]

RFC 5960 MPLS-TP Data Plane Architecture August 2010 o Structure-Aware Time Division Multiplexed (TDM) Circuit Emulation Service over Packet Switched Network (CESoPSN) [RFC5086] o Time Division Multiplexing over IP (TDMoIP) [RFC5087] o Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Fibre Channel frames Over MPLS Networks [FC-ENCAP] This document specifies no modifications or extensions to pseudowire data plane architectures or protocols.4. MPLS-TP Generic Associated Channel The MPLS Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) mechanism is specified in [RFC5586] and included in the MPLS-TP. The G-ACh provides an auxiliary logical data channel associated with MPLS-TP sections, LSPs, and PWs in the data plane. The primary purpose of the G-ACh in the context of MPLS-TP is to support control, management, and Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) traffic associated with MPLS-TP transport entities. The G-ACh MUST NOT be used to transport client layer network traffic in MPLS-TP networks. For pseudowires, the G-ACh uses the first four bits of the PW control word to provide the initial discrimination between data packets and packets belonging to the associated channel, as described in [RFC4385]. When this first nibble of a packet, immediately following the label at the bottom of stack, has a value of '1', then this packet belongs to a G-ACh. The first 32 bits following the bottom of stack label then have a defined format called an Associated Channel Header (ACH), which further defines the content of the packet. The ACH is therefore both a demultiplexer for G-ACh traffic on the PW, and a discriminator for the type of G-ACh traffic. When the control message is carried over a section or an LSP, rather than over a PW, it is necessary to provide an indication in the packet that the payload is something other than a client data packet. This is achieved by including a reserved label with a value of 13 at the bottom of the label stack. This reserved label is referred to as the G-ACh Label (GAL) and is defined in [RFC5586]. When a GAL is found, it indicates that the payload begins with an ACH. The GAL is thus a demultiplexer for G-ACh traffic on the section or the LSP, and the ACH is a discriminator for the type of traffic carried on the G-ACh. MPLS-TP forwarding follows the normal MPLS model, and thus a GAL is invisible to an LSR unless it is the top label in the label stack. The only other circumstance under which the label stack may be inspected for a GAL is when the TTL has expired. Normal packetFrost, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]

RFC 5960 MPLS-TP Data Plane Architecture August 2010 forwarding MAY continue concurrently with this inspection. All operations on the label stack are in accordance with [RFC3031] and [RFC3032]. An application processing a packet received over the G-ACh may require packet-specific context (such as the receiving interface or received label stack). Data plane implementations MUST therefore provide adequate context to the application that is to process a G-ACh packet. The definition of the context required MUST be provided as part of the specification of the application using the G-ACh.5. Server-Layer Considerations The MPLS-TP network has no awareness of the internals of the server layer of which it is a client; it requires only that the server layer be capable of delivering the type of service required by the MPLS-TP transport entities that make use of it. Note that what appears to be a single server-layer link to the MPLS-TP network may be a complicated construct underneath, such as an LSP or a collection of underlying links operating as a bundle. Special care may be needed in network design and operation when such constructs are used as a server layer for MPLS-TP. Encapsulation of MPLS-TP packets for transport over specific server- layer media is outside the scope of this document.6. Security Considerations The MPLS data plane (and therefore the MPLS-TP data plane) does not provide any security mechanisms in and of itself. Client layers that wish to secure data carried over MPLS-TP transport entities are REQUIRED to apply their own security mechanisms. Where management or control plane protocols are used to install label-switching operations necessary to establish MPLS-TP transport paths, those protocols are equipped with security features that network operators may use to securely create the transport paths. Where enhanced security is desirable, and a trust relationship exists between an LSR and its peer, the LSR MAY choose to implement the following policy for the processing of MPLS packets received from one or more of its neighbors: Upon receipt of an MPLS packet, discard the packet unless one of the following two conditions holds:Frost, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]

RFC 5960             MPLS-TP Data Plane Architecture         August 2010      1.  Any MPLS label in the packet's label stack processed at the          receiving LSR, such as an LSP or PW label, has a label value          that the receiving LSR has distributed to that neighbor; or      2.  Any MPLS label in the packet's label stack processed at the          receiving LSR, such as an LSP or PW label, has a label value          that the receiving LSR has previously distributed to the peer          beyond that neighbor (i.e., when it is known that the path          from the system to which the label was distributed to the          receiving system is via that neighbor).   Further details of MPLS and MPLS-TP security can be found in   [RFC5921] and [RFC5920].7.  References7.1.  Normative References   [RFC2119]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate               Requirement Levels",BCP 14,RFC 2119, March 1997.   [RFC3031]   Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol               Label Switching Architecture",RFC 3031, January 2001.   [RFC3032]   Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,               Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack               Encoding",RFC 3032, January 2001.   [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.   [RFC3270]   Le Faucheur, F., Wu, L., Davie, B., Davari, S., Vaananen,               P., Krishnan, R., Cheval, P., and J. Heinanen, "Multi-               Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Support of Differentiated               Services",RFC 3270, May 2002.   [RFC3443]   Agarwal, P. and B. Akyol, "Time To Live (TTL) Processing               in Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Networks",RFC 3443, January 2003.   [RFC4385]   Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson,               "Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word               for Use over an MPLS PSN",RFC 4385, February 2006.   [RFC4448]   Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., and G. Heron,               "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Ethernet over               MPLS Networks",RFC 4448, April 2006.Frost, et al.                Standards Track                   [Page 12]

RFC 5960             MPLS-TP Data Plane Architecture         August 2010   [RFC4553]   Vainshtein, A. and YJ. Stein, "Structure-Agnostic Time               Division Multiplexing (TDM) over Packet (SAToP)",RFC 4553, June 2006.   [RFC4618]   Martini, L., Rosen, E., Heron, G., and A. Malis,               "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of PPP/High-Level               Data Link Control (HDLC) over MPLS Networks",RFC 4618,               September 2006.   [RFC4619]   Martini, L., Kawa, C., and A. Malis, "Encapsulation               Methods for Transport of Frame Relay over Multiprotocol               Label Switching (MPLS) Networks",RFC 4619,               September 2006.   [RFC4717]   Martini, L., Jayakumar, J., Bocci, M., El-Aawar, N.,               Brayley, J., and G. Koleyni, "Encapsulation Methods for               Transport of Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) over MPLS               Networks",RFC 4717, December 2006.   [RFC4816]   Malis, A., Martini, L., Brayley, J., and T. Walsh,               "Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Asynchronous               Transfer Mode (ATM) Transparent Cell Transport Service",RFC 4816, February 2007.   [RFC4842]   Malis, A., Pate, P., Cohen, R., and D. Zelig,               "Synchronous Optical Network/Synchronous Digital               Hierarchy (SONET/SDH) Circuit Emulation over Packet               (CEP)",RFC 4842, April 2007.   [RFC4875]   Aggarwal, R., Papadimitriou, D., and S. Yasukawa,               "Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic               Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE Label               Switched Paths (LSPs)",RFC 4875, May 2007.   [RFC5331]   Aggarwal, R., Rekhter, Y., and E. Rosen, "MPLS Upstream               Label Assignment and Context-Specific Label Space",RFC 5331, August 2008.   [RFC5332]   Eckert, T., Rosen, E., Aggarwal, R., and Y. Rekhter,               "MPLS Multicast Encapsulations",RFC 5332, August 2008.   [RFC5462]   Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multiprotocol Label               Switching (MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed               to "Traffic Class" Field",RFC 5462, February 2009.   [RFC5586]   Bocci, M., Vigoureux, M., and S. Bryant, "MPLS Generic               Associated Channel",RFC 5586, June 2009.Frost, et al.                Standards Track                   [Page 13]

RFC 5960             MPLS-TP Data Plane Architecture         August 2010   [RFC5654]   Niven-Jenkins, B., Brungard, D., Betts, M., Sprecher, N.,               and S. Ueno, "Requirements of an MPLS Transport Profile",RFC 5654, September 2009.7.2.  Informative References   [FC-ENCAP]  Black, D. and L. Dunbar, "Encapsulation Methods for               Transport of Fibre Channel frames Over MPLS Networks",               Work in Progress, June 2010.   [RFC3985]   Bryant, S. and P. Pate, "Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-               Edge (PWE3) Architecture",RFC 3985, March 2005.   [RFC5086]   Vainshtein, A., Sasson, I., Metz, E., Frost, T., and P.               Pate, "Structure-Aware Time Division Multiplexed (TDM)               Circuit Emulation Service over Packet Switched Network               (CESoPSN)",RFC 5086, December 2007.   [RFC5087]   Stein, Y(J)., Shashoua, R., Insler, R., and M. Anavi,               "Time Division Multiplexing over IP (TDMoIP)",RFC 5087,               December 2007.   [RFC5659]   Bocci, M. and S. Bryant, "An Architecture for Multi-               Segment Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge",RFC 5659,               October 2009.   [RFC5920]   Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS               Networks",RFC 5920, July 2010.   [RFC5921]   Bocci, M., Bryant, S., Frost, D., Levrau, L., and L.               Berger, "A Framework for MPLS in Transport Networks",RFC 5921, July 2010.Frost, et al.                Standards Track                   [Page 14]

RFC 5960             MPLS-TP Data Plane Architecture         August 2010Authors' Addresses   Dan Frost (editor)   Cisco Systems   EMail: danfrost@cisco.com   Stewart Bryant (editor)   Cisco Systems   EMail: stbryant@cisco.com   Matthew Bocci (editor)   Alcatel-Lucent   EMail: matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.comFrost, et al.                Standards Track                   [Page 15]

[8]ページ先頭