Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Berger
Request for Comments: 6004 LabN
Category: Standards Track D. Fedyk
ISSN: 2070-1721 Alcatel-Lucent
October 2010
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Berger
Request for Comments: 6004 LabN
Category: Standards Track D. Fedyk
ISSN: 2070-1721 Alcatel-Lucent
October 2010
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support for Metro Ethernet Forum and G.8011 Ethernet Service Switching
对城域以太网论坛和G.8011以太网业务交换的通用MPLS（GMPLS）支持
Abstract
摘要
This document describes a method for controlling two specific types of Ethernet switching via Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS). This document supports the types of switching corresponding to the Ethernet services that have been defined in the context of the Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) and International Telecommunication Union (ITU) G.8011. Specifically, switching in support of Ethernet private line and Ethernet virtual private line services are covered. Support for MEF- and ITU-defined parameters is also covered.
本文档描述了通过通用多协议标签交换（GMPLS）控制两种特定类型以太网交换的方法。本文件支持与城域以太网论坛（MEF）和国际电信联盟（ITU）G.8011中定义的以太网服务相对应的交换类型。具体地说，包括支持以太网专用线和以太网虚拟专用线服务的交换。还包括对MEF和ITU定义参数的支持。
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
这是一份互联网标准跟踪文件。
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.
本文件是互联网工程任务组（IETF）的产品。它代表了IETF社区的共识。它已经接受了公众审查，并已被互联网工程指导小组（IESG）批准出版。有关互联网标准的更多信息，请参见RFC 5741第2节。
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/rfc6004.
有关本文件当前状态、任何勘误表以及如何提供反馈的信息，请访问http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6004.
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
版权所有（c）2010 IETF信托基金和确定为文件作者的人员。版权所有。
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.
本文件受BCP 78和IETF信托有关IETF文件的法律规定的约束(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)自本文件出版之日起生效。请仔细阅读这些文件，因为它们描述了您对本文件的权利和限制。从本文件中提取的代码组件必须包括信托法律条款第4.e节中所述的简化BSD许可证文本，并提供简化BSD许可证中所述的无担保。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction ....................................................3
1.1. Overview ...................................................3
1.2. Conventions Used in This Document ..........................4
2. Common Signaling Support ........................................5
2.1. Ethernet Endpoint Identification ...........................5
2.1.1. Endpoint ID TLV .....................................5
2.1.1.1. Procedures .................................6
2.2. Connection Identification ..................................6
2.2.1. Procedures ..........................................6
2.3. Traffic Parameters .........................................7
2.3.1. L2 Control Protocol TLV .............................7
2.4. Bundling and VLAN Identification ...........................9
3. EPL Service .....................................................9
3.1. EPL Service Parameters .....................................9
4. EVPL Service ...................................................10
4.1. EVPL Generalized Label Format .............................10
4.2. Egress VLAN ID Control and VLAN ID Preservation ...........11
4.3. Single Call - Single LSP ..................................11
4.4. Single Call - Multiple LSPs ...............................11
5. IANA Considerations ............................................12
5.1. Endpoint ID Attributes TLV ................................12
5.2. Line LSP Encoding .........................................12
5.3. Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) Switching Type .......12
6. Security Considerations ........................................13
7. References .....................................................13
7.1. Normative References ......................................13
7.2. Informative References ....................................14
Acknowledgments ...................................................14
1. Introduction ....................................................3
1.1. Overview ...................................................3
1.2. Conventions Used in This Document ..........................4
2. Common Signaling Support ........................................5
2.1. Ethernet Endpoint Identification ...........................5
2.1.1. Endpoint ID TLV .....................................5
2.1.1.1. Procedures .................................6
2.2. Connection Identification ..................................6
2.2.1. Procedures ..........................................6
2.3. Traffic Parameters .........................................7
2.3.1. L2 Control Protocol TLV .............................7
2.4. Bundling and VLAN Identification ...........................9
3. EPL Service .....................................................9
3.1. EPL Service Parameters .....................................9
4. EVPL Service ...................................................10
4.1. EVPL Generalized Label Format .............................10
4.2. Egress VLAN ID Control and VLAN ID Preservation ...........11
4.3. Single Call - Single LSP ..................................11
4.4. Single Call - Multiple LSPs ...............................11
5. IANA Considerations ............................................12
5.1. Endpoint ID Attributes TLV ................................12
5.2. Line LSP Encoding .........................................12
5.3. Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) Switching Type .......12
6. Security Considerations ........................................13
7. References .....................................................13
7.1. Normative References ......................................13
7.2. Informative References ....................................14
Acknowledgments ...................................................14
[MEF6] and [G.8011] provide parallel frameworks for defining network-oriented characteristics of Ethernet services in transport networks. The framework discusses general Ethernet connection characteristics, Ethernet User-Network Interfaces (UNIs) and Ethernet Network-Network Interfaces (NNIs). Within this framework, [G.8011.1] defines the Ethernet Private Line (EPL) service and [G.8011.2] defines the Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) service. [MEF6] covers both service types. [MEF10.1] defines service parameters and [MEF11] provides UNI requirements and framework.
[MEF6]和[G.8011]提供了用于定义传输网络中以太网服务面向网络特性的并行框架。该框架讨论了一般以太网连接特性、以太网用户网络接口（UNIs）和以太网网络接口（NNI）。在此框架内，[G.8011.1]定义了以太网专用线（EPL）服务，[G.8011.2]定义了以太网虚拟专用线（EVPL）服务。[MEF6]涵盖这两种服务类型。[MEF10.1]定义服务参数，[MEF11]提供UNI要求和框架。
[MEF6] and [G.8011] are focused on service interfaces and not the underlying technology used to support the service. For example, [G.8011] refers to the defined services being transported over one of several possible "server layers". This document focuses on the types of switching that may directly support these services and provides a method for GMPLS-based control of such switching technologies. This document defines the GMPLS extensions needed to support such switching, but does not define the UNI or External NNI (E-NNI) reference points. See [RFC6005] for a description of the UNI reference point. This document makes use of the traffic parameters defined in [RFC6003] and the generic extensions defined in [RFC6002].
[MEF6]和[G.8011]关注的是服务接口，而不是用于支持服务的底层技术。例如，[G.8011]指的是通过几个可能的“服务器层”之一传输的定义服务。本文档重点介绍可能直接支持这些服务的交换类型，并提供了基于GMPLS的此类交换技术控制方法。本文件定义了支持此类切换所需的GMPLS扩展，但未定义UNI或外部NNI（E-NNI）参考点。有关UNI参考点的说明，请参见[RFC6005]。本文件使用了[RFC6003]中定义的流量参数和[RFC6002]中定义的通用扩展。
This document uses a common approach to supporting the switching corresponding to the Ethernet services defined in [MEF6], [G.8011.1], and [G.8011.2]. The approach builds on standard GMPLS mechanisms to deliver the required control capabilities. This document reuses the GMPLS mechanisms specified in [RFC3473] and [RFC4974]. The document uses the extensions defined in [RFC6002].
本文档使用一种通用方法来支持与[MEF6]、[G.8011.1]和[G.8011.2]中定义的以太网服务相对应的交换。该方法建立在标准GMPLS机制的基础上，以提供所需的控制能力。本文件重用了[RFC3473]和[RFC4974]中规定的GMPLS机制。本文档使用[RFC6002]中定义的扩展。
Two types of connectivity between Ethernet endpoints are defined in [MEF6] and [G.8011]: point-to-point (P2P) and multipoint-to-multipoint (MP2MP). [MEF6] uses the term Ethernet Line (E-line) to refer to point-to-point virtual connections, and Ethernet LAN (E-LAN) to refer to multipoint-to-multipoint virtual connections. [G.8011] also identifies point-to-multipoint (P2MP) as an area for "further study". Within the context of GMPLS, support is defined for point-to-point unidirectional and bidirectional Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs), see [RFC3473], and unidirectional point-to-multipoint TE LSPs, see [RFC4875].
[MEF6]和[G.8011]中定义了以太网端点之间的两种连接类型：点对点（P2P）和多点对多点（MP2MP）。[MEF6]使用术语以太网线路（E-Line）表示点对点虚拟连接，以太网LAN（E-LAN）表示多点对多点虚拟连接。[G.8011]还将点对多点（P2MP）确定为“进一步研究”的领域。在GMPLS的上下文中，定义了对点对点单向和双向流量工程标签交换路径（TE LSP）的支持，参见[RFC3473]，以及单向点对多点TE LSP，参见[RFC4875]。
Support for P2P and MP2MP services is defined by [G.8011] and required by [MEF11]. Note that while [MEF11] and [G.8011] discuss MP2MP, [G.8011.1] and [G.8011.2] only define support for P2P. There is a clear correspondence between E-Line/P2P service and GMPLS P2P TE
对P2P和MP2MP服务的支持由[G.8011]定义，并由[MEF11]要求。注意，虽然[MEF11]和[G.8011]讨论了MP2MP，但[G.8011.1]和[G.8011.2]只定义了对P2P的支持。E-Line/P2P服务与GMPLS-P2P-TE之间存在明确的对应关系
LSPs, and support for such LSPs is included in the scope of this document. There is no such clear correspondence between E-LAN/MP2MP service and GMPLS TE LSPs. Although, it is possible to emulate this service using multiple P2P or P2MP TE LSPs, the definition of support for MP2MP service is left for future study and is not addressed in this document.
LSP以及对此类LSP的支持包含在本文件的范围内。E-LAN/MP2MP服务与GMPLS TE LSP之间没有如此明确的对应关系。尽管可以使用多个P2P或P2MP TE LSP来模拟此服务，但MP2MP服务支持的定义将留待将来研究，本文档中不会讨论。
[MEF11] defines multiple types of control for UNI Ethernet services. In MEF UNI Type 1, services are configured manually. In MEF UNI Type 2, services may be configured manually or via a link management interface. In MEF UNI Type 3, services may be established and managed via a signaling interface. From the MEF perspective, this document, along with [RFC6005], is aimed at the network control needed to support the MEF UNI Type 3 mode of operation.
[MEF11]定义了单以太网服务的多种控制类型。在MEF UNI Type 1中，服务是手动配置的。在MEF UNI Type 2中，可以手动或通过链路管理接口配置服务。在MEF UNI Type 3中，可以通过信令接口建立和管理服务。从MEF的角度来看，本文件以及[RFC6005]旨在支持MEF UNI 3型运行模式所需的网络控制。
[G.8011.1], [G.8011.2], and [MEF11], together with [MEF10.1], define a set of service attributes that are associated with each Ethernet connection. Some of these attributes are based on the provisioning of the local physical connection and are not modifiable or selectable per connection. Other attributes are specific to a particular connection or must be consistent across the connection. The approach taken in this document to communicate these attributes is to exclude the static class of attributes from signaling. This class of attributes will not be explicitly discussed in this document. The other class of attributes is communicated via signaling and will be reviewed in the sections below. The major attributes that will be supported in signaling include:
[G.8011.1]、[G.8011.2]和[MEF11]以及[MEF10.1]定义了一组与每个以太网连接相关联的服务属性。其中一些属性基于本地物理连接的设置，不可修改或选择每个连接。其他属性是特定于特定连接的，或者必须在整个连接中保持一致。本文档中传达这些属性的方法是从信令中排除静态属性类。本文档中不会明确讨论此类属性。另一类属性通过信令进行通信，将在以下章节中进行审查。信令中支持的主要属性包括：
- Endpoint identifiers - Connection identifiers - Traffic parameters (see [RFC6003]) - Bundling / VLAN IDs map (EVPL only) - VLAN ID Preservation (EVPL only)
- 端点标识符-连接标识符-流量参数（参见[RFC6003]）-捆绑/VLAN ID映射（仅限EVPL）-VLAN ID保留（仅限EVPL）
Common procedures used to support Ethernet LSPs are described in Section 2 of this document. Procedures related to the signaling of switching in support of EPL services are described in Section 3. Procedures related to the signaling of switching in support of EVPL services are described in Section 4.
本文件第2节描述了用于支持以太网LSP的常见过程。第3节描述了与支持EPL服务的交换信令相关的程序。第4节描述了与支持EVPL服务的交换信号相关的程序。
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].
本文件中的关键词“必须”、“不得”、“必需”、“应”、“不应”、“应”、“不应”、“建议”、“可”和“可选”应按照[RFC2119]中所述进行解释。
This section describes the common mechanisms for supporting GMPLS signaled control of LSPs that provide Ethernet connections as defined in [MEF11], [G.8011.1], and [G.8011.2].
本节描述了支持提供[MEF11]、[G.8011.1]和[G.8011.2]中定义的以太网连接的LSP的GMPLS信号控制的常见机制。
Except as specifically modified in this document, the procedures related to the processing of RSVP objects are not modified by this document. The relevant procedures in existing documents, such as [RFC3473], MUST be followed in all cases not explicitly described in this document.
除本文件特别修改外，本文件不修改与RSVP对象处理相关的程序。在本文件未明确描述的所有情况下，必须遵守现有文件（如[RFC3473]）中的相关程序。
Ethernet endpoint identifiers, as they are defined in [G.8011] and [MEF10.1], differ significantly from the identifiers used by GMPLS. Specifically, the Ethernet endpoint identifiers are character based as opposed to the GMPLS norm of being IP address based.
[G.8011]和[MEF10.1]中定义的以太网端点标识符与GMPLS使用的标识符明显不同。具体而言，以太网端点标识符是基于字符的，而GMPLS规范是基于IP地址的。
The approach taken by this document to address this disparity leverages the solution used for connection identification, see Section 2.2 and [RFC4974], and a new CALL_ATTRIBUTES TLV defined in this document. The solution makes use of the [RFC4974] short Call ID, and supports the Ethernet endpoint identifier similar to how [RFC4974] supports the long Call ID. That is, the SENDER_TEMPLATE and SESSION objects carry IP addresses and a short Call ID, and long identifiers are carried in the CALL_ATTRIBUTES object. As with the long Call ID, the Ethernet endpoint identifier is typically only relevant at the ingress and egress nodes.
本文件为解决这一差异而采取的方法利用了用于连接识别的解决方案（见第2.2节和[RFC4974]），以及本文件中定义的新调用属性TLV。该解决方案使用[RFC4974]短呼叫ID，并支持以太网端点标识符，类似于[RFC4974]支持长呼叫ID的方式。也就是说，发送方模板和会话对象携带IP地址和短呼叫ID，长标识符携带在呼叫属性对象中。与长呼叫ID一样，以太网端点标识符通常仅与入口和出口节点相关。
As defined below, the Ethernet endpoint identifier is carried in the CALL_ATTRIBUTES object in a new TLV. The new TLV is referred to as the Endpoint ID TLV. The processing of the Endpoint ID TLV parallels the processing of the long Call ID in [RFC4974]. This processing requires the inclusion of the CALL_ATTRIBUTES object in a Notify message.
如下所述，以太网端点标识符携带在新TLV中的CALL_ATTRIBUTES对象中。新的TLV称为端点ID TLV。端点ID TLV的处理与[RFC4974]中长调用ID的处理并行。此处理要求在Notify消息中包含CALL_ATTRIBUTES对象。
The Endpoint ID TLV follows the Attributes TLV format defined in [RFC6001]. The Endpoint ID TLV has the following format:
端点ID TLV遵循[RFC6001]中定义的属性TLV格式。端点ID TLV具有以下格式：
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (30) | Length (variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Endpoint ID |
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (30) | Length (variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Endpoint ID |
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type and Length fields are defined in [RFC6001]. Note that as defined in [RFC6001], the Length field is set to length of the whole TLV including the Type, Length, and Endpoint ID fields.
类型和长度字段在[RFC6001]中定义。注意，如[RFC6001]中所定义，长度字段设置为整个TLV的长度，包括类型、长度和端点ID字段。
Endpoint ID
端点ID
The Endpoint ID field is a variable-size field that carries an endpoint identifier, see [MEF10.1] and [G.8011]. This field MUST be null padded as defined in [RFC6001].
端点ID字段是一个带有端点标识符的可变大小字段，请参见[MEF10.1]和[G.8011]。此字段必须按[RFC6001]中的定义填充为空。
The use of the Endpoint ID TLV is required during Call management. When a Call is established or torn down per [RFC4974], a CALL_ATTRIBUTES object containing an Endpoint ID TLV MUST be included in the Notify message along with the long Call ID.
呼叫管理期间需要使用端点ID TLV。当根据[RFC4974]建立或终止调用时，包含端点ID TLV的Call_ATTRIBUTES对象必须与长调用ID一起包含在Notify消息中。
Short Call ID processing, including those procedures related to Call and connection processing, is not modified by this document and MUST proceed according to [RFC4974].
短呼叫ID处理，包括与呼叫和连接处理相关的程序，不受本文档的修改，必须按照[RFC4974]进行。
Signaling for Ethernet connections follows the procedures defined in [RFC4974]. In particular, the Call-related mechanisms are used to support endpoint identification. In the context of Ethernet connections, a Call is only established when one or more LSPs (connections in [RFC4974] terms) are needed. An LSP will always be established within the context of a Call and, typically, only one LSP will be used per Call. See Section 4.4 for the case where more than one LSP may exist within a Call.
以太网连接的信令遵循[RFC4974]中定义的程序。特别是，调用相关机制用于支持端点标识。在以太网连接的上下文中，仅当需要一个或多个LSP（以[RFC4974]术语表示的连接）时才建立呼叫。LSP将始终在呼叫上下文中建立，并且通常每个呼叫只使用一个LSP。有关一次呼叫中可能存在多个LSP的情况，请参见第4.4节。
Any node that supports Ethernet connections MUST be able to accept and process Call setups per [RFC4974]. Ethernet connections established according to this document MUST treat the Ethernet (virtual) connection identifier as the long "Call identifier (ID)",
任何支持以太网连接的节点必须能够根据[RFC4974]接受和处理呼叫设置。根据本文件建立的以太网连接必须将以太网（虚拟）连接标识符视为长“呼叫标识符（ID）”，
described in [RFC4974]. The short Call ID MUST be used as described in [RFC4974]. Use of the LINK_CAPABILITY object is OPTIONAL. Both network-initiated and user-initiated Calls MUST be supported.
如[RFC4974]所述。必须按照[RFC4974]中的说明使用短呼叫ID。使用链接功能对象是可选的。必须支持网络发起和用户发起的呼叫。
When establishing an Ethernet connection, the initiator MUST first establish a Call per the procedures defined in [RFC4974]. LSP management, including removal and addition, then follows [RFC4974]. As stated in [RFC4974], once a Call is established, the initiator SHOULD establish at least one Ethernet LSP. Also, when the last LSP associated with a Call is removed, the Call SHOULD be torn down per the procedures in [RFC4974].
建立以太网连接时，启动器必须首先按照[RFC4974]中定义的过程建立调用。LSP管理，包括删除和添加，然后遵循[RFC4974]。如[RFC4974]所述，一旦建立呼叫，发起方应建立至少一个以太网LSP。此外，当删除与调用关联的最后一个LSP时，应按照[RFC4974]中的过程删除该调用。
Several types of service attributes are carried in the traffic parameters defined in [RFC6003]. These parameters are carried in the FLOWSPEC and TSPEC objects as discussed in [RFC6003]. The service attributes that are carried are:
[RFC6003]中定义的流量参数中包含多种类型的服务属性。这些参数包含在[RFC6003]中讨论的FLOWSPEC和TSPEC对象中。所携带的服务属性包括：
- Bandwidth Profile - VLAN Class of Service (CoS) Preservation - Layer 2 Control Protocol (L2CP) Processing (see Section 2.3.1)
- 带宽配置文件-VLAN服务等级（CoS）保护-第2层控制协议（L2CP）处理（见第2.3.1节）
Ethernet connections established according to this document MUST use the traffic parameters defined in [RFC6003] in the FLOWSPEC and TSPEC objects. Additionally, the Switching Granularity field of the Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object MUST be set to zero (0).
根据本文件建立的以太网连接必须使用FLOWSPEC和TSPEC对象中[RFC6003]中定义的流量参数。此外，Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC对象的交换粒度字段必须设置为零（0）。
[MEF10.1], [G.8011.1], and [G.8011.2] define service attributes that impact the layer two (L2) control protocol processing at the ingress and egress. [RFC6003] does not define support for these service attributes, but does allow the attributes to be carried in a TLV. This section defines the L2CP TLV to carry the L2CP-processing-related service attributes.
[MEF10.1]、[G.8011.1]和[G.8011.2]定义影响入口和出口处第二层（L2）控制协议处理的服务属性。[RFC6003]未定义对这些服务属性的支持，但允许在TLV中携带这些属性。本节定义L2CP TLV以承载L2CP处理相关的服务属性。
The format of the L2 Control Protocol (L2CP) TLV is as follows:
L2控制协议（L2CP）TLV的格式如下：
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type=3 | Length=8 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IL2CP | EL2CP | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type=3 | Length=8 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IL2CP | EL2CP | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
See [RFC6003] for a description of the Type and Length fields. Per [RFC6003], the Type field MUST be set to three (3), and the Length field MUST be set to eight (8) for the L2CP TLV.
有关类型和长度字段的说明，请参见[RFC6003]。根据[RFC6003]，L2CP TLV的类型字段必须设置为三（3），长度字段必须设置为八（8）。
Ingress Layer 2 Control Processing (IL2CP): 4 bits
入口层2控制处理（IL2CP）：4位
This field controls processing of Layer 2 Control Protocols on a receiving interface. Valid usage is service specific, see [MEF10.1], [G.8011.1], and [G.8011.2].
此字段控制接收接口上第2层控制协议的处理。有效使用是特定于服务的，请参见[MEF10.1]、[G.8011.1]和[G.8011.2]。
Permitted values are:
允许值为：
Value Description Reference
----- ----------- ---------
0 Reserved
1 Discard/Block [MEF10.1], [G.8011.1], and [G.8011.2]
2 Peer/Process [MEF10.1], [G.8011.1], and [G.8011.2]
3 Pass to EVC/Pass [MEF10.1], [G.8011.1], and [G.8011.2]
4 Peer and Pass to EVC [MEF10.1]
Value Description Reference
----- ----------- ---------
0 Reserved
1 Discard/Block [MEF10.1], [G.8011.1], and [G.8011.2]
2 Peer/Process [MEF10.1], [G.8011.1], and [G.8011.2]
3 Pass to EVC/Pass [MEF10.1], [G.8011.1], and [G.8011.2]
4 Peer and Pass to EVC [MEF10.1]
Egress Layer 2 Control Processing (EL2CP): 4 bits
出口层2控制处理（EL2CP）：4位
This field controls processing of Layer 2 Control Protocols on a transmitting interface. When MEF services are used a value of 1 MUST be used, other valid usage is service specific, see [G.8011.1] and [G.8011.2].
该字段控制传输接口上第2层控制协议的处理。当使用MEF服务时，必须使用值1，其他有效使用是服务特定的，请参见[G.8011.1]和[G.8011.2]。
Permitted values are:
允许值为：
Value Description Reference
----- ----------- ---------
0 Reserved
1 Based on IL2CP Value [MEF10.1]
2 Generate [G.8011.1] and [G.8011.2]
3 None [G.8011.1] and [G.8011.2]
4 Reserved
Value Description Reference
----- ----------- ---------
0 Reserved
1 Based on IL2CP Value [MEF10.1]
2 Generate [G.8011.1] and [G.8011.2]
3 None [G.8011.1] and [G.8011.2]
4 Reserved
Reserved: 24 bits
保留：24位
This field is reserved. It MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt. This field SHOULD be passed unmodified by transit nodes.
此字段是保留的。传输时必须将其设置为零，接收时必须忽略。传输节点应未经修改地传递此字段。
Ethernet connections established according to this document MUST include the L2CP TLV in the [RFC6003] traffic parameters carried in the FLOWSPEC and TSPEC objects.
根据本文件建立的以太网连接必须包括FLOWSPEC和TSPEC对象中携带的[RFC6003]流量参数中的L2CP TLV。
The control of bundling and listing of VLAN identifiers is only supported for EVPL services. EVPL service specific details are provided in Section 4.
只有EVPL服务才支持绑定和列出VLAN标识符的控制。第4节提供了EVPL服务的具体细节。
Both [MEF6] and [G.8011.1] define an Ethernet Private Line (EPL) service. In the words of [G.8011.1], EPL services carry "Ethernet characteristic information over dedicated bandwidth, point-to-point connections, provided by SDH, ATM, MPLS, PDH, ETY or OTH server layer networks". [G.8011.1] defines two types of Ethernet Private Line (EPL) services. Both types present a service where all data presented on a port is transported to the corresponding connected port. The types differ in that EPL type 1 service operates at the MAC frame layer, while EPL type 2 service operates at the line (e.g., 8B/10B) encoding layer. [MEF6] only defines one type of EPL service, and it matches [G.8011.1] EPL type 1 service. Signaling for LSPs that support both types of EPL services are detailed below.
[MEF6]和[G.8011.1]都定义了以太网专用线（EPL）服务。用[G.8011.1]的话来说，EPL服务承载“SDH、ATM、MPLS、PDH、ETY或OTH服务器层网络提供的专用带宽、点对点连接上的以太网特征信息”。[G.8011.1]定义了两种类型的以太网专用线（EPL）服务。这两种类型都提供了一种服务，其中端口上显示的所有数据都传输到相应的连接端口。这些类型的不同之处在于，EPL类型1服务在MAC帧层运行，而EPL类型2服务在线路（例如，8B/10B）编码层运行。[MEF6]只定义一种类型的EPL服务，它与[G.8011.1]EPL类型1服务匹配。下面详细介绍支持两种类型EPL服务的LSP的信令。
Signaling for the EPL service types only differ in the LSP Encoding Type used. The LSP Encoding Type used for each are:
EPL服务类型的信令仅在所使用的LSP编码类型上有所不同。用于每种类型的LSP编码类型为：
EPL Service LSP Encoding Type (Value) Reference
----------- ------------------------- ---------
Type 1/MEF Ethernet (2) [RFC3471]
Type 2 Line (e.g., 8B/10B)(14) [RFC6004]
EPL Service LSP Encoding Type (Value) Reference
----------- ------------------------- ---------
Type 1/MEF Ethernet (2) [RFC3471]
Type 2 Line (e.g., 8B/10B)(14) [RFC6004]
The other LSP parameters specific to EPL Service are:
特定于EPL服务的其他LSP参数包括：
Parameter Name (Value) Reference
-------------- ----------------- ------------------
Switching Type DCSC (125) [RFC6002]
G-PID Ethernet PHY (33) [RFC3471][RFC4328]
Parameter Name (Value) Reference
-------------- ----------------- ------------------
Switching Type DCSC (125) [RFC6002]
G-PID Ethernet PHY (33) [RFC3471][RFC4328]
The parameters defined in this section MUST be used when establishing and controlling LSPs that provide EPL service type Ethernet switching. The procedures defined in Section 2 and the other procedures defined in [RFC3473] for the establishment and management of bidirectional LSPs MUST be followed when establishing and controlling LSPs that provide EPL service type Ethernet switching.
在建立和控制提供EPL服务类型以太网交换的LSP时，必须使用本节中定义的参数。在建立和控制提供EPL服务型以太网交换的LSP时，必须遵循第2节中定义的程序和[RFC3473]中定义的用于建立和管理双向LSP的其他程序。
EVPL service is defined within the context of both [G.8011.2] and [MEF6]. EVPL service allows for multiple Ethernet connections per port, each of which supports a specific set of VLAN IDs. The service attributes identify different forms of EVPL services, e.g., bundled or unbundled. Independent of the different forms, LSPs supporting EVPL Ethernet type switching are signaled using the same mechanisms to communicate the one or more VLAN IDs associated with a particular LSP (Ethernet connection).
EVPL服务是在[G.8011.2]和[MEF6]的上下文中定义的。EVPL服务允许每个端口有多个以太网连接，每个连接都支持一组特定的VLAN ID。服务属性标识不同形式的EVPL服务，例如捆绑或非捆绑。独立于不同的形式，支持EVPL以太网类型交换的LSP使用相同的机制发送信号，以通信与特定LSP（以太网连接）相关联的一个或多个VLAN ID。
The relevant [RFC3471] parameter values that MUST be used for EVPL connections are:
EVPL连接必须使用的相关[RFC3471]参数值为：
Parameter Name (Value) Reference
-------------- ----------------- ------------------
Switching Type EVPL (30) [RFC6004]
LSP Encoding Type Ethernet (2) [RFC3471]
G-PID Ethernet PHY (33) [RFC3471][RFC4328]
Parameter Name (Value) Reference
-------------- ----------------- ------------------
Switching Type EVPL (30) [RFC6004]
LSP Encoding Type Ethernet (2) [RFC3471]
G-PID Ethernet PHY (33) [RFC3471][RFC4328]
As with EPL, the procedures defined in Section 2 and the other procedures defined in [RFC3473] for the establishment and management of bidirectional LSPs MUST be followed when establishing and controlling LSPs that provide EVPL service type Ethernet switching.
与EPL一样，在建立和控制提供EVPL服务类型以太网交换的LSP时，必须遵循第2节中定义的程序以及[RFC3473]中定义的用于建立和管理双向LSP的其他程序。
LSPs that provide EVPL service type Ethernet switching MUST use the EVPL Generalized Label Format per Section 4.1, and the Generalized Channel_Set Label Objects per [RFC6002]. A notable implication of bundled EVPL services and carrying multiple VLAN IDs is that a Path message may grow to be larger than a single (fragmented or non-fragmented) IP packet. The basic approach to solving this is to allow for multiple LSPs which are associated with a single Call, see Section 2.2. The specifics of this approach are describe below in Section 4.4.
提供EVPL服务类型以太网交换的LSP必须根据第4.1节使用EVPL通用标签格式，并根据[RFC6002]使用通用信道设置标签对象。捆绑的EVPL服务和携带多个VLAN ID的一个显著含义是路径消息可能会增长到比单个（碎片化或非碎片化）IP数据包更大。解决此问题的基本方法是允许多个LSP与单个调用关联，请参见第2.2节。第4.4节描述了该方法的细节。
Bundled EVPL services require the use of a service-specific label, called the EVPL Generalized Label. For consistency, non-bundled EVPL services also use the same label.
绑定的EVPL服务需要使用特定于服务的标签，称为EVPL通用标签。为了保持一致性，非绑定EVPL服务也使用相同的标签。
The format for the Generalized Label (Label Type value 2) used with EVPL services is:
EVPL服务使用的通用标签（标签类型值2）格式为：
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Rsvd | VLAN ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Rsvd | VLAN ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Reserved: 4 bits
保留：4位
This field is reserved. It MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt. This field SHOULD be passed unmodified by transit nodes.
此字段是保留的。传输时必须将其设置为零，接收时必须忽略。传输节点应未经修改地传递此字段。
VLAN ID: 12 bits
VLAN ID:12位
A VLAN identifier.
VLAN标识符。
When an EVPL service is not configured for both bundling and VLAN ID preservation, [MEF6] allows VLAN ID mapping. In particular, the single VLAN ID used at the incoming interface of the ingress may be mapped to a different VLAN ID at the outgoing interface at the egress UNI. Such mapping MUST be requested and signaled based on the explicit label control mechanism defined in [RFC3473] and clarified in [RFC4003].
当EVPL服务未配置为绑定和VLAN ID保留时，[MEF6]允许VLAN ID映射。具体地，在入口的输入接口处使用的单个VLAN ID可以映射到出口UNI处的输出接口处的不同VLAN ID。必须根据[RFC3473]中定义并在[RFC4003]中阐明的显式标签控制机制请求和通知此类映射。
When the explicit label control mechanism is not used, VLAN IDs MUST be preserved, i.e., not modified, across an LSP.
当不使用显式标签控制机制时，必须跨LSP保留（即不修改）VLAN ID。
For simplicity in management, a single LSP SHOULD be used for each EVPL type LSP whose Path and Resv messages fit within a single unfragmented IP packet. This allows the reuse of all standard LSP modification procedures. Of particular note is the modification of the VLAN IDs associated with the Ethernet connection. Specifically, [RFC6002], make-before-break procedures SHOULD be used to modify the Channel_Set LABEL object.
为了简化管理，每个EVPL类型的LSP应该使用一个LSP，其路径和Resv消息适合于一个未分段的IP数据包。这允许重用所有标准LSP修改程序。特别值得注意的是修改了与以太网连接相关的VLAN ID。具体而言，[RFC6002]，应使用先通后断程序修改通道设置标签对象。
Multiple LSPs MAY be used to support an EVPL service connection. All such LSPs MUST be established within the same Call and follow Call-related procedures, see Section 2.2. The primary purpose of multiple LSPs is to support the case in which the related objects result in a Path message being larger than a single unfragmented IP packet.
多个LSP可用于支持EVPL服务连接。所有此类LSP必须在同一呼叫中建立，并遵循呼叫相关程序，见第2.2节。多个LSP的主要目的是支持相关对象导致路径消息大于单个未分段IP数据包的情况。
When using multiple LSPs, all LSPs associated with the same Call/EVPL connection MUST be signaled with the same LSP objects with the exception of the SENDER_TEMPLATE, SESSION, and label-related objects. All such LSPs SHOULD share resources. When using multiple LSPs, VLAN IDs MAY be added to the EVPL connection using either a new LSP or make-before-break procedures, see [RFC3209]. Make-before-break procedures on individual LSPs SHOULD be used to remove VLAN IDs.
当使用多个LSP时，与同一Call/EVPL连接关联的所有LSP都必须用相同的LSP对象发出信号，但发送方模板、会话和标签相关对象除外。所有此类LSP应共享资源。当使用多个LSP时，可以使用新LSP或先通后断程序将VLAN ID添加到EVPL连接，请参阅[RFC3209]。应使用单个LSP上的先通后断过程删除VLAN ID。
To change other service parameters it is necessary to re-signal all LSPs associated with the Call via make-before-break procedures.
要更改其他服务参数，必须通过先通后断程序重新向所有与呼叫相关的LSP发送信号。
IANA has assigned new values for namespaces defined in this document and summarized in this section. The registries are available from http://www.iana.org.
IANA已为本文档中定义的名称空间分配了新值，并在本节中进行了总结。登记处可从以下网址获得：http://www.iana.org.
IANA has made the following assignment in the "Call Attributes TLV" section of the "RSVP Parameters" registry.
IANA在“RSVP参数”注册表的“调用属性TLV”部分进行了以下分配。
Type Name Reference
---- ----------- ---------
2 Endpoint ID [RFC6004]
Type Name Reference
---- ----------- ---------
2 Endpoint ID [RFC6004]
IANA has made the following assignment in the "LSP Encoding Types" section of the "GMPLS Signaling Parameters" registry.
IANA在“GMPLS信令参数”注册表的“LSP编码类型”部分中进行了以下分配。
Value Type Reference
----- --------------------------- ---------
14 Line (e.g., 8B/10B) [RFC6004]
Value Type Reference
----- --------------------------- ---------
14 Line (e.g., 8B/10B) [RFC6004]
IANA has made the following assignment in the "Switching Types" section of the "GMPLS Signaling Parameters" registry.
IANA在“GMPLS信令参数”注册表的“切换类型”部分进行了以下分配。
Value Type Reference
----- ------------------------------------ ---------
30 Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) [RFC6004]
Value Type Reference
----- ------------------------------------ ---------
30 Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) [RFC6004]
The assigned value has been reflected in IANAGmplsSwitchingTypeTC of the IANA-GMPLS-TC-MIB available from http://www.iana.org.
分配的值已反映在IANA-GMPLS-TC-MIB的IANAGMPLSSSwitchingTypeTC中，可从http://www.iana.org.
This document introduces new message object formats for use in GMPLS signaling [RFC3473]. It does not introduce any new signaling messages, nor change the relationship between Label Switching Routers (LSRs) that are adjacent in the control plane. As such, this document introduces no additional security considerations to those discussed in [RFC3473].
本文档介绍了GMPLS信令[RFC3473]中使用的新消息对象格式。它不会引入任何新的信令消息，也不会改变控制平面中相邻的标签交换路由器（LSR）之间的关系。因此，本文件不引入[RFC3473]中讨论的其他安全注意事项。
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2119]Bradner，S.，“RFC中用于表示需求水平的关键词”，BCP 14，RFC 2119，1997年3月。
[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.
[RFC3209]Awduche，D.，Berger，L.，Gan，D.，Li，T.，Srinivasan，V.，和G.Swallow，“RSVP-TE：LSP隧道RSVP的扩展”，RFC 3209，2001年12月。
[RFC3471] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, January 2003.
[RFC3471]Berger，L.，Ed.“通用多协议标签交换（GMPLS）信令功能描述”，RFC 3471，2003年1月。
[RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC3473]Berger，L.，Ed.“通用多协议标签交换（GMPLS）信令资源预留协议流量工程（RSVP-TE）扩展”，RFC 3473，2003年1月。
[RFC4003] Berger, L., "GMPLS Signaling Procedure for Egress Control", RFC 4003, February 2005.
[RFC4003]Berger，L.，“出口控制的GMPLS信号程序”，RFC 4003，2005年2月。
[RFC4974] Papadimitriou, D. and A. Farrel, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in Support of Calls", RFC 4974, August 2007.
[RFC4974]Papadimitriou，D.和A.Farrel，“支持呼叫的通用MPLS（GMPLS）RSVP-TE信令扩展”，RFC 4974，2007年8月。
[RFC6001] Papadimitriou, D., Vigoureux, M., Shiomoto, K., Brungard, D. and JL. Le Roux, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Protocol Extensions for Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks (MLN/MRN)", RFC 6001, October 2010.
[RFC6001]Papadimitriou，D.，Vigoureux，M.，Shiomoto，K.，Brungard，D.和JL。Le Roux，“多层和多区域网络（MLN/MRN）的通用MPLS（GMPLS）协议扩展”，RFC 60012010年。
[RFC6002] Berger, L. and D. Fedyk, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Data Channel Switching Capable (DCSC) and Channel Set Label Extensions", RFC 6002, October 2010.
[RFC6002]Berger，L.和D.Fedyk，“通用MPLS（GMPLS）数据信道交换功能（DCSC）和信道集标签扩展”，RFC6002，2010年10月。
[RFC6003] Papadimitriou, D., "Ethernet Traffic Parameters," RFC 6003, October 2010.
[RFC6003]Papadimitriou，D.，“以太网流量参数”，RFC6003，2010年10月。
[G.8011] ITU-T G.8011/Y.1307, "Ethernet over Transport Ethernet services framework", August 2004.
[G.8011]ITU-T G.8011/Y.1307，“传输以太网服务框架上的以太网”，2004年8月。
[G.8011.1] ITU-T G.G.8011.1/Y.1307.1, "Ethernet private line service", August 2004.
[G.8011.1]ITU-T G.G.8011.1/Y.1307.1，“以太网专线服务”，2004年8月。
[G.8011.2] ITU-T G.8011.2/Y.1307.2, "Ethernet virtual private line service", September 2005.
[G.8011.2]ITU-T G.8011.2/Y.1307.2，“以太网虚拟专线服务”，2005年9月。
[MEF6] The Metro Ethernet Forum, "Ethernet Services Definitions - Phase I", MEF 6, June 2004.
[MEF6]Metro Ethernet论坛，“以太网服务定义-第一阶段”，MEF6，2004年6月。
[MEF10.1] The Metro Ethernet Forum, "Ethernet Services Attributes Phase 2", MEF 10.1, November 2006.
[MEF10.1]Metro Ethernet论坛，“以太网服务属性第2阶段”，MEF 10.12006年11月。
[MEF11] The Metro Ethernet Forum , "User Network Interface (UNI) Requirements and Framework", MEF 11, November 2004.
[MEF11]Metro Ethernet论坛，“用户网络接口（UNI）要求和框架”，MEF 11，2004年11月。
[RFC4328] Papadimitriou, D., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328, January 2006.
[RFC4328]Papadimitriou，D.，编辑，“G.709光传输网络控制的通用多协议标签交换（GMPLS）信令扩展”，RFC 4328，2006年1月。
[RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Ed., and S. Yasukawa, Ed., "Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875, May 2007.
[RFC4875]Aggarwal，R.，Ed.，Papadimitriou，D.，Ed.，和S.Yasukawa，Ed.，“资源预留协议的扩展-点对多点TE标签交换路径（LSP）的流量工程（RSVP-TE）”，RFC 48752007年5月。
[RFC6005] Berger, L. and D. Fedyk,"Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support for Metro Ethernet Forum and G.8011 User Network Interface (UNI)", RFC 6005, October 2010.
[RFC6005]Berger，L.和D.Fedyk，“对城域以太网论坛和G.8011用户网络接口（UNI）的通用MPLS（GMPLS）支持”，RFC 60052010年10月。
Acknowledgments
致谢
Dimitri Papadimitriou provided substantial textual contributions to this document and coauthored earlier versions of this document.
Dimitri Papadimitriou为本文件提供了大量的文本贡献，并与他人共同编写了本文件的早期版本。
The authors would like to thank Evelyne Roch, Stephen Shew, and Yoav Cohen for their valuable comments.
作者要感谢伊芙琳·罗奇、斯蒂芬·休和约夫·科恩的宝贵评论。
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Lou Berger LabN Consulting, L.L.C. Phone: +1-301-468-9228 EMail: lberger@labn.net
Lou Berger LabN Consulting，L.L.C.电话：+1-301-468-9228电子邮件：lberger@labn.net
Don Fedyk Alcatel-Lucent Groton, MA 01450 Phone: +1-978-467-5645 EMail: donald.fedyk@alcatel-lucent.com
唐·费迪克·阿尔卡特·朗讯·格罗顿，马萨诸塞州01450电话：+1-978-467-5645电子邮件：唐纳德。fedyk@alcatel-朗讯网