Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Berger
Request for Comments: 6005 LabN
Category: Standards Track D. Fedyk
ISSN: 2070-1721 Alcatel-Lucent
October 2010
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Berger
Request for Comments: 6005 LabN
Category: Standards Track D. Fedyk
ISSN: 2070-1721 Alcatel-Lucent
October 2010
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support for Metro Ethernet Forum and G.8011 User Network Interface (UNI)
通用MPLS（GMPLS）支持城域以太网论坛和G.8011用户网络接口（UNI）
Abstract
摘要
This document describes a method for controlling two specific types of Ethernet switching via a GMPLS-based User Network Interface (UNI). This document supports the types of switching required by the Ethernet services that have been defined in the context of the Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) and International Telecommunication Union (ITU) G.8011. This document is the UNI companion to "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support for Metro Ethernet Forum and G.8011 Ethernet Service Switching". This document does not define or limit the underlying intra-domain or Internal NNI (I-NNI) technology used to support the UNI.
本文档描述了通过基于GMPLS的用户网络接口（UNI）控制两种特定类型以太网交换的方法。本文件支持城域以太网论坛（MEF）和国际电信联盟（ITU）G.8011中定义的以太网服务所需的交换类型。本文档是“对城域以太网论坛和G.8011以太网服务交换的通用MPLS（GMPLS）支持”的唯一补充。本文件不定义或限制用于支持UNI的基础域内或内部NNI（I-NNI）技术。
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/rfc6005.
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/rfc6005.
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 ...................................................4
1.2. Conventions Used in This Document ..........................5
2. Common Signaling Support ........................................5
2.1. UNI Addressing .............................................5
2.2. Ethernet Endpoint (UNI) Identification .....................6
2.2.1. Address Resolution ..................................6
2.3. Connection Identification ..................................7
3. EPL Service .....................................................7
4. EVPL Service ....................................................7
4.1. Egress VLAN ID Control and VLAN ID Preservation ............7
5. IANA Considerations .............................................8
5.1. Error Value: Routing Problem/Unknown Endpoint ..............8
6. Security Considerations .........................................8
7. References ......................................................8
7.1. Normative References .......................................8
7.2. Informative References .....................................9
Acknowledgments ....................................................9
1. Introduction ....................................................3
1.1. Overview ...................................................4
1.2. Conventions Used in This Document ..........................5
2. Common Signaling Support ........................................5
2.1. UNI Addressing .............................................5
2.2. Ethernet Endpoint (UNI) Identification .....................6
2.2.1. Address Resolution ..................................6
2.3. Connection Identification ..................................7
3. EPL Service .....................................................7
4. EVPL Service ....................................................7
4.1. Egress VLAN ID Control and VLAN ID Preservation ............7
5. IANA Considerations .............................................8
5.1. Error Value: Routing Problem/Unknown Endpoint ..............8
6. Security Considerations .........................................8
7. References ......................................................8
7.1. Normative References .......................................8
7.2. Informative References .....................................9
Acknowledgments ....................................................9
[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。
This document provides a method for GMPLS-based control of Label Switched Paths (LSPs) that support the transport services defined in the above documents at the UNI network reference points. This document does not define or limit the underlying intra-domain or Internal NNI (I-NNI) technology used to support the UNI. This document makes use of the GMPLS extensions defined in [RFC6004] and [RFC6002].
本文件提供了一种基于GMPLS的标签交换路径（LSP）控制方法，该路径在UNI网络参考点支持上述文件中定义的传输服务。本文件不定义或限制用于支持UNI的基础域内或内部NNI（I-NNI）技术。本文件使用了[RFC6004]和[RFC6002]中定义的GMPLS扩展。
The scope of this document covers Ethernet UNI applications, and it is intended to be consistent with the GMPLS overlay model presented in [RFC4208] and aligned with GMPLS Core Network signaling. The scope and reference model used in this document are represented in Figure 1, which is based on Figure 1 of [RFC4208].
本文件的范围涵盖以太网UNI应用，旨在与[RFC4208]中提出的GMPLS覆盖模型保持一致，并与GMPLS核心网络信令保持一致。本文件中使用的范围和参考模型如图1所示，其基于[RFC4208]的图1。
Figure 1 shows two core networks, each containing two core nodes. The core nodes are labeled 'CN'. Connected to each CN is an edge node. The edge nodes are labeled 'EN'. Each EN supports Ethernet Networks and use Ethernet services provided by the core nodes via a UNI. Two services are represented: one EPL and one EVPL type service. Signaling within the core network is out of scope of this document and may include any technology that supports overlay UNI services. The UNI function in the edge node can be referred to as the UNI client, or UNI-C, and in the CN as UNI network, or UNI-N.
图1显示了两个核心网络，每个网络包含两个核心节点。核心节点标记为“CN”。连接到每个CN的是一个边缘节点。边缘节点标记为“EN”。每个EN支持以太网，并使用核心节点通过UNI提供的以太网服务。表示两个服务：一个EPL和一个EVPL类型的服务。核心网络内的信令不在本文件范围内，可能包括支持覆盖UNI服务的任何技术。边缘节点中的UNI功能可以称为UNI客户端或UNI-C，在CN中称为UNI网络或UNI-N。
Ethernet Ethernet
Network +----------+ +-----------+ Network
+---------+ | | | | +---------+
| +----+ | | +-----+ | | +-----+ | | +----+ |
------+ | | EPL | | | | | | | | EPL | | +------
------+ EN +-+-----+--+ CN +---------+ CN +--+-----+-+ EN +------
| | | | +--+--| +---+ | | +--+-----+-+ | |
| +----+ | | | +--+--+ | | | +--+--+ | | +----+ |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
+---------+ | | | | | | | | +---------+
| | | | | | | |
+---------+ | | | | | | | | +---------+
| | | | +--+--+ | | | +--+--+ | | |
| +----+ | | | | | | +-----+ | | | +----+ |
------+ +-+--+ | | CN +---------+ CN | | | | +------
------+ EN +-+-----+--+ | | | | +--+-----+-+ EN +------
| | | |EVPL | +-----+ | | +-----+ |EVPL | | | |
| +----+ | | | | | | +----+ |
| | +----------+ |-----------+ | |
+---------+ Core Network(s) +---------+
Ethernet UNI UNI Ethernet
Network <-----> <-----> Network
Scope of This Document
Ethernet Ethernet
Network +----------+ +-----------+ Network
+---------+ | | | | +---------+
| +----+ | | +-----+ | | +-----+ | | +----+ |
------+ | | EPL | | | | | | | | EPL | | +------
------+ EN +-+-----+--+ CN +---------+ CN +--+-----+-+ EN +------
| | | | +--+--| +---+ | | +--+-----+-+ | |
| +----+ | | | +--+--+ | | | +--+--+ | | +----+ |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
+---------+ | | | | | | | | +---------+
| | | | | | | |
+---------+ | | | | | | | | +---------+
| | | | +--+--+ | | | +--+--+ | | |
| +----+ | | | | | | +-----+ | | | +----+ |
------+ +-+--+ | | CN +---------+ CN | | | | +------
------+ EN +-+-----+--+ | | | | +--+-----+-+ EN +------
| | | |EVPL | +-----+ | | +-----+ |EVPL | | | |
| +----+ | | | | | | +----+ |
| | +----------+ |-----------+ | |
+---------+ Core Network(s) +---------+
Ethernet UNI UNI Ethernet
Network <-----> <-----> Network
Scope of This Document
Legend: EN - Edge Node CN - Core Node
图例：EN-边缘节点CN-核心节点
Figure 1: Ethernet UNI Reference Model
图1：以太网UNI参考模型
This document uses a common approach to supporting the switching implied by 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 [RFC6004], [RFC4208], and [RFC4974].
本文档使用一种通用方法来支持[MEF6]、[G.8011.1]和[G.8011.2]中定义的以太网服务所隐含的交换。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[RFC6004]、[RFC4208]和[RFC4974]中规定的GMPLS机制。
Support for Point-to-Point (P2P) and Multipoint-to-Multipoint (MP2MP) service is required by [G.8011] and [MEF11]. P2P service delivery support is based on the GMPLS support for Ethernet services covered in [RFC6004]. As with [RFC6004], the definition of support for MP2MP service is left for future study and is not addressed in this document.
[G.8011]和[MEF11]要求支持点对点（P2P）和多点对多点（MP2MP）服务。P2P服务交付支持基于[RFC6004]中所述的对以太网服务的GMPLS支持。与[RFC6004]一样，MP2MP服务支持的定义留待将来研究，本文档中未涉及。
[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
[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，可建立和维护服务
managed via a signaling interface. As with [RFC6004], this document is aimed at supporting the MEF UNI Type 3 mode of operation (and not MEF UNI Types 1 and 2). As mentioned above, this document is limited to covering UNI-specific topics.
通过信令接口进行管理。与[RFC6004]一样，本文件旨在支持MEF UNI类型3操作模式（而不是MEF UNI类型1和2）。如上所述，本文件仅限于涵盖UNI的特定主题。
Common procedures used to signal Ethernet connections are described in Section 2 of this document. Procedures related to signaling switching in support of EPL services are described in Section 3. Procedures related to signaling switching in support of EVPL services are described in Section 4.
本文件第2节描述了用于向以太网连接发送信号的常用程序。第3节描述了与支持EPL服务的信令交换相关的程序。第4节描述了与支持EVPL服务的信令切换相关的程序。
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 a UNI reference point for LSPs that provide the Ethernet Services described in [RFC6004].
本节描述了为提供[RFC6004]中所述以太网服务的LSP支持UNI参考点的常见机制。
Except as specifically modified in this document, the procedures related to the processing of Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) objects is not modified by this document. The relevant procedures in existing documents, notably [RFC6002], [RFC6004], [RFC4208], and [RFC4974], MUST be followed in all cases not explicitly described in this document.
除本文档中特别修改的内容外，与资源预留协议（RSVP）对象处理相关的过程不受本文档的修改。在本文件未明确描述的所有情况下，必须遵守现有文件中的相关程序，尤其是[RFC6002]、[RFC6004]、[RFC4208]和[RFC4974]。
LSPs providing Ethernet connections controlled via the mechanisms defined in this document MUST use the addressing and other procedures defined in [RFC4208]. Of note, this includes the use of the egress edge node's IP address in the endpoint address field in the SESSION object.
提供通过本文件中定义的机制控制的以太网连接的LSP必须使用[RFC4208]中定义的寻址和其他程序。注意，这包括在会话对象的端点地址字段中使用出口边缘节点的IP地址。
One issue that presents itself with the addressing approach taken in [RFC4208] is that an ingress edge node may not receive the egress edge node's IP address as part of the management, or other, request that results in the initiation of a new Ethernet connection. This case is covered as described in Section 7.2 of [RFC4974] and modified below in Section 2.2.1.
[RFC4208]中采用的寻址方法本身存在的一个问题是，入口边缘节点可能无法接收出口边缘节点的IP地址，作为导致启动新以太网连接的管理或其他请求的一部分。本案例如[RFC4974]第7.2节所述，并在下文第2.2.1节中进行了修改。
UNI identification, except as noted below, MUST follow Ethernet endpoint (UNI) identification as defined in [RFC6004]. There is one additional case that is covered in this document where the scope of the Ethernet endpoint identifier is relevant beyond the typical case of just ingress and egress nodes.
除非下文另有说明，否则UNI标识必须遵循[RFC6004]中定义的以太网端点（UNI）标识。本文档还介绍了一种情况，其中以太网端点标识符的范围与仅入口和出口节点的典型情况无关。
At the UNI reference point, it is possible for the ingress edge node to not have the egress edge node's IP address when initiating an LSP. This presents an issue as the egress edge node's IP address is carried in the SESSION object. This case is handled leveraging the approach described in Section 7.2 of [RFC4974] to address call ID assignment by the first core node.
在UNI参考点处，入口边缘节点在发起LSP时可能没有出口边缘节点的IP地址。这是一个问题，因为出口边缘节点的IP地址在会话对象中携带。利用[RFC4974]第7.2节中描述的方法处理此情况，以解决第一个核心节点的呼叫ID分配问题。
When an edge node (the UNI-C) initiates an LSP and it has the egress Ethernet endpoint identifier, but does not have its IP address, the edge node MUST create a Notify message as described in [RFC4974]. The Notify message MUST include the CALL_ATTRIBUTES object with the Endpoint ID TLV defined [RFC6004]. The tunnel endpoint address field of the SESSION object in the Notify message MUST be set to zero (0). The message MUST be addressed and sent to an address associated with the first core node.
当边缘节点（UNI-C）启动LSP且其具有出口以太网端点标识符但没有其IP地址时，边缘节点必须按照[RFC4974]中所述创建通知消息。通知消息必须包括定义了端点ID TLV[RFC6004]的CALL_ATTRIBUTES对象。通知消息中会话对象的隧道端点地址字段必须设置为零（0）。消息必须寻址并发送到与第一个核心节点关联的地址。
When a core node, i.e., the node providing the network side of the UNI (the UNI-N), receives a Notify message with the tunnel endpoint address field of the SESSION object set to zero, it MUST locate the Endpoint ID TLV in the CALL_ATTRIBUTES object. If the object or TLV are not present, the node MUST discard the message. In this case, a Message ID Acknowledgment MUST NOT be sent for the Notify message.
当核心节点，即提供UNI（UNI-N）的网络侧的节点，接收到会话对象的隧道端点地址字段设置为零的通知消息时，它必须在CALL_ATTRIBUTES对象中定位端点ID TLV。如果对象或TLV不存在，则节点必须放弃该消息。在这种情况下，不得为Notify消息发送消息ID确认。
When the Endpoint ID TLV is located, the node MUST map the Endpoint ID into an IP address associated with the egress edge node. If the node is unable to obtain an egress address, it MUST issue an error response Notify messages according to Section 6.2.2. of [RFC4974]. The Error code and value SHOULD be "Routing Problem/Unknown Endpoint" (Error code 24, Error value 35).
找到端点ID TLV时，节点必须将端点ID映射到与出口边缘节点关联的IP地址。如果节点无法获得出口地址，则必须根据第6.2.2节发出错误响应通知消息。属于[RFC4974]。错误代码和值应为“路由问题/未知端点”（错误代码24，错误值35）。
When the node is able to obtain an egress address, the endpoint address field of the SESSION object MUST be set to the obtained address, and the Notify message should be sent according to the standard processing defined in [RFC4974]. The downstream nodes will then process the Notify according to standard processing rules.
当节点能够获得出口地址时，会话对象的端点地址字段必须设置为获得的地址，并且应根据[RFC4974]中定义的标准处理发送通知消息。然后，下游节点将根据标准处理规则处理通知。
When the ingress receives the response Notify message, it SHOULD identify the call based on the Endpoint ID TLV and, when not set to zero on the corresponding setup Notify message, the short and long Call IDs. The endpoint address field of the SESSION object carried in the response Notify message will include the egress's IP address. This returned address MUST be used in all subsequent messages associated with the Ethernet connection.
当入口接收到响应通知消息时，它应基于端点ID TLV识别呼叫，当相应的设置通知消息未设置为零时，应基于短呼叫ID和长呼叫ID识别呼叫。响应通知消息中携带的会话对象的端点地址字段将包括出口的IP地址。此返回地址必须在与以太网连接相关的所有后续消息中使用。
Note that the procedure described in this section MAY be used when the Call IDs are generated by the initiating UNI or generated by the first core node.
注意，当呼叫id由发起UNI生成或由第一核心节点生成时，可以使用本节中描述的过程。
With one exception, UNI signaling for Ethernet connections MUST follow the Connection Identification procedures defined in [RFC6004]. The exception is that the procedures defined in Section 7.2 of [RFC4974] MAY be used to provide support for allocation of Call IDs by the first core node rather than by the initiating edge node.
除一个例外，以太网连接的UNI信令必须遵循[RFC6004]中定义的连接标识程序。例外情况是[RFC4974]第7.2节中定义的程序可用于支持第一个核心节点而不是发起边缘节点分配呼叫ID。
There are no additional UNI-specific requirements for signaling LSPs supporting Ethernet Private Line (EPL) services. The procedures defined in [RFC6004], as modified above, MUST be followed when signaling an LSPs supporting an EPL Service.
对于支持以太网专用线（EPL）服务的信令LSP，没有额外的UNI特定要求。当向支持EPL服务的LSP发送信号时，必须遵循[RFC6004]中定义的程序（如上所述）。
There is one additional UNI-specific requirement for signaling LSPs supporting an EVPL type service as described in Section 4.1. Except as modified above and by this section, the procedures defined in [RFC6004] MUST be followed when signaling an EVPL Service.
如第4.1节所述，对于支持EVPL类型服务的信令LSP，还有一个额外的UNI特定要求。除上文和本节所述修改外，在向EVPL服务发送信号时，必须遵循[RFC6004]中定义的程序。
Per [MEF6], the mapping of the single VLAN ID used at the ingress UNI to a different VLAN ID at the egress UNI is allowed for EVPL services that do not support both bundling and VLAN ID preservation. Such a mapping MUST be requested and signaled based on the explicit label control mechanism defined in [RFC4208], and not the mechanisms defined in [RFC6004].
根据[MEF6]，对于不支持捆绑和VLAN ID保留的EVPL服务，允许将入口UNI处使用的单个VLAN ID映射到出口UNI处的不同VLAN ID。必须根据[RFC4208]中定义的显式标签控制机制，而不是[RFC6004]中定义的机制，请求并通知此类映射。
As is the case in [RFC6004], when the explicit label control mechanism is not used VLAN IDs MUST be preserved, i.e., not modified, across the LSP.
与[RFC6004]中的情况一样，当不使用显式标签控制机制时，必须在整个LSP中保留VLAN ID，即不修改。
IANA has assigned new values for namespaces defined in this document and summarized in this section.
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。
IANA has made the following assignment in the "Error Codes and Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes" section of the "RSVP Parameters" registry located at http://www.iana.org:
IANA在位于的“RSVP参数”注册表的“错误代码和全局定义的错误值子代码”部分进行了以下分配：http://www.iana.org:
Error Code Meaning 24 Routing Problem [RFC3209]
错误代码表示24路问题[RFC3209]
Under "This Error Code has the following globally-defined Error Value sub-codes:"
在“此错误代码具有以下全局定义的错误值子代码”下：
35 = Unknown Endpoint [RFC6005]
35=未知终点[RFC6005]
This document makes use of the mechanisms defined in [RFC6004] and [RFC4974]. It does not in itself change the security models offered in each. (Note that the address resolution discussed in Section 2.2 above, parallels the replacement of information that occurs per Section 7.2 of [RFC4974].) See [RFC6004] and [RFC4974] for the security considerations that are relevant to and introduced by the base mechanisms used by this document.
本文件使用了[RFC6004]和[RFC4974]中定义的机制。它本身并不会改变每一个应用程序中提供的安全模型。（注意，上文第2.2节中讨论的地址解析与[RFC4974]第7.2节中所述的信息替换是平行的。）有关与本文档所用基本机制相关并由其引入的安全注意事项，请参见[RFC6004]和[RFC4974]。
[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。
[RFC4208] Swallow, G., Drake, J., Ishimatsu, H., and Y. Rekhter, "Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) User-Network Interface (UNI): Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Support for the Overlay Model", RFC 4208, October 2005.
[RFC4208]Swallow，G.，Drake，J.，Ishimatsu，H.，和Y.Rekhter，“通用多协议标签交换（GMPLS）用户网络接口（UNI）：覆盖模型的资源预留协议流量工程（RSVP-TE）支持”，RFC 4208，2005年10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。
[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。
[RFC6004] Berger, L. and D. Fedyk, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support for Metro Ethernet Forum and G.8011 Ethernet Service Switching", RFC 6004, October 2010.
[RFC6004]Berger，L.和D.Fedyk，“对城域以太网论坛和G.8011以太网服务交换的通用MPLS（GMPLS）支持”，RFC 60042010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。
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 and Stephen Shew for their valuable comments.
作者要感谢Evelyne Roch和Stephen Shew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