PWE3 Moran Roth (Ed.)
Internet-Draft Ronen Solomon
Intended status: Standards Track Corrigent Systems
Expires: July 15, 2009 Munefumi Tsurusawa
KDDI
January 15, 2009
Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Fibre Channel frames
Over MPLS Networks
draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap-09.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and 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 July 15, 2009.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document.
Roth, et al. Expires - July 15, 2009 [Page 1]
INTERNET DRAFT FC Encapsulation January 2009
Abstract
A Fibre Channel pseudowire (PW) is used to carry Fibre Channel frames
over an MPLS network. This enables service providers to offer
"emulated" Fibre Channel services over existing MPLS networks. This
document specifies the encapsulation of Fibre Channel PDUs within a
pseudowire. It also specifies the common procedures for using a PW to
provide a Fibre Channel service. The mechanisms controlling the
reliable transport of Fibre Channel PW over MPLS networks are
specified in a companion document [FC-flow].
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 in RFC 2119 [1].
Roth, et al. Expires - July 15, 2009 [Page 2]
INTERNET DRAFT FC Encapsulation January 2009
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................4
1.1. Transparency..............................................5
1.2. Bandwidth Efficiency......................................5
1.3. Traffic Engineering.......................................5
2. Reference Model................................................6
3. Encapsulation..................................................8
3.1. The Control Word..........................................8
3.2. MTU Requirements..........................................9
3.3. Mapping of FC traffic to PW PDU...........................9
3.4. PW failure mapping.......................................11
4. Signaling of FC Pseudowires...................................11
4.1. Interface Parameters for FC PW...........................12
4.1.1. SR Poll Timeout (T1)...................................12
4.1.2. SR Response Timeout (T2)...............................12
4.1.3. SR Poll Retries (N2)...................................12
4.1.4. SR Window Size (k).....................................12
4.1.5. Fragmentation Indicator................................13
5. Security Considerations.......................................13
6. Applicability Statement.......................................13
7. IANA Considerations...........................................14
8. Normative References..........................................15
9. Informative references........................................15
10. Author's Addresses...........................................16
11. Contributing Author Information..............................17
Roth, et al. Expires - July 15, 2009 [Page 3]
INTERNET DRAFT FC Encapsulation January 2009
1. Introduction
As metro transport networks migrate towards a packet-oriented network
infrastructure, the PSN is being extended in order to allow all
services to be transported over a common network infrastructure. This
has been accomplished for services such as Ethernet [RFC4448], Frame
Relay [RFC4619], ATM [RFC4717] and SONET/SDH [RFC4842] services.
Another such service, which has yet to be addressed, is the transport
of Fibre Channel (FC) frames over the PSN. This will allow network
service providers to transparently carry FC services over the packet-
oriented network, along with the aforementioned data and TDM
services.
During recent years applications such as Storage Area Networks (SAN)
extension and disaster recovery have become a prominent business
opportunity for network service providers. In order to meet the
intrinsic service requirements that characterize FC-based
applications, such as transparency and low latency, various methods
for encapsulating and transporting FC frames over backbone networks
have been developed [FC-BB].
FC/IP, as described in [RFC3821] and [FC-BB], defines the mechanisms
that allow the interconnection of islands of FC SANs over IP
Networks. It provides a method for encapsulating FC frames employing
FC Frame Encapsulation, as defined in [RFC3643], and addresses
specific FC concerns related to tunneling FC over a pure IP network.
Fibre Channel pseusowire (FC PW) is being proposed to provide a
method for transporting FC frames over an MPLS network. It defines
the encapsulation of FC Protocol Data Units (PDU) into an MPLS
pseudowire, as well as procedures for using PW encapsulation to
enable FC services such as SAN extension and disaster recovery over
an MPLS PSN.
FC PW complements the currently available standardized methods for
transporting FC frames over a PSN. Specifically, FC/IP addresses
"only the requirements necessary to properly utilize a pure IP
network as a conduit for FC Frames", whereas FC PW addresses the
requirements necessary to transport FC over an MPLS PSN. An example
of such a network might be a packet-oriented multi-service transport
network, where MPLS is used as the universal method for encapsulating
and transporting all type of services, including mission critical FC
applications as well as other TDM and data services. Hence, a key
benefit of FC PW is that it will enable the extension of FC
applications to the carrier space.
Roth, et al. Expires - July 15, 2009 [Page 4]
INTERNET DRAFT FC Encapsulation January 2009
The following sections describe some of the key carrier requirements
for transporting FC frames over an MPLS PSN.
1.1. Transparency
Transparent emulation of an FC link is a key requirement for
transporting FC frames over a carrier's network. Conventionally, the
coupling (or pairing) of FC entities with those pertaining to
specific encapsulation methods requires the protocol-specific entity
to terminate the FC Entity. This, in most cases, would require global
address synchronization to be performed by the operator. In
addressing this requirement, and providing full transparency, FC PW
defines a port-mode FC encapsulation into a PW. This requires the
creation of an FC pseudowire emulating an FC Link between two FC
ports, appearing architecturally as being wired to those ports,
similar to the approach defined for FC over GFPT in [FC-BB]. This
results in transparent forwarding of FC frames over the MPLS PSN from
both the FC Fabric and the operator's point of view.
1.2. Bandwidth Efficiency
This is an important requirement for transporting FC over an MPLS
PSN, where the protocol overhead has to be minimized in order to
guarantee an end-to-end performance consistent with, e.g., SONET
networks. FC PW defines a minimal overhead of 16 bytes, required due
to the inclusion of the FC Encapsulation Header (4 bytes, refer to
section 6.2.1), as well as the Control Word (4 bytes), PW label (4
bytes) and MPLS label (4 bytes). This can be contrasted with the
overhead required by other methods such as those defined in [FC-BB].
Moreover, the ability to characterize services by specific bandwidth
attributes, such as Committed Information Rate (CIR) and Excess
Information Rate (EIR), effectively enables network operators to take
full advantage of the statistical multiplexing capabilities of a
packet-oriented network. This allows the multiplexing of best effort
and premium services over the same media, effectively optimizing
bandwidth utilization while still providing bandwidth guarantees and
high service availability, as required by premium services such as FC
PW.
1.3. Traffic Engineering
The transport of FC frames over a PSN network requires the operator
not only to optimize the use of bandwidth resources, but also to
define an explicit path over which availability and performance can
be guaranteed. This capability is offered by other interconnect
technologies such as ATM or SONET network technologies.
Roth, et al. Expires - July 15, 2009 [Page 5]
INTERNET DRAFT FC Encapsulation January 2009
FC PW defines the mapping of FC frames into a PW, implicitly assuming
the use of MPLS-TE for the explicit provisioning of an FC PW over the
MPLS PSN. This enables the operator to guarantee the performance and
availability of the emulated FC link.
FC requires a reliable transmission mechanism between FC entities.
This implicitly assumes a lossless media with high availability.
This, however, cannot always be guaranteed in best effort networks
where FC frames are at times transported over sub-optimal paths.
Bearing this in mind, FC PW relies on MPLS-TE to create an emulated
FC link over a packet-oriented network, effectively enabling network
operators to establish an explicit path to enhance frame transmission
performance.
2. Reference Model
FC PW allows FC Protocol Data Units (PDUs) to be carried over an MPLS
network. In addressing the issues associated with carrying a FC PDU
over an MPLS network, this document assumes that a pseudowire has
been set up by some means outside of the scope of this document. This
MAY be achieved via static provisioning, or using the signaling
protocol as defined in [RFC4447].
FC PW emulates a single FC link between exactly two endpoints. This
document specifies the emulated PW encapsulation for FC.
Figure 1 describes the reference models which are derived from
[RFC3985] to support the FC PW emulated services.
For the purpose of the discussion in this document PE1 will be
defined as the ingress router, and PE2 as the egress router. A layer
2 PDU will be received at PE1, encapsulated at PE1, transported,
decapsulated at PE2, and transmitted out on the attachment circuit of
PE2.
Roth, et al. Expires - July 15, 2009 [Page 6]
INTERNET DRAFT FC Encapsulation January 2009
|<-------------- Emulated Service ----------------->|
| |
| |<------- Pseudowire -------->| |
| | | |
| | |<-- MPLS Tunnel -->| | |
| V V V V |
V AC +----+ +----+ AC V
+-----+ | | PE1|===================| PE2| | +-----+
| |----------|............PW1..............|----------| |
| CE1 | | | | | | | | CE2 |
| |----------|............PW2..............|----------| |
+-----+ ^ | | |===================| | | ^ +-----+
^ | +----+ +----+ | | ^
| | Provider Edge 1 Provider Edge 2 | |
| | | |
Customer | | Customer
Edge 1 | | Edge 2
| |
| |
Native FC service Native FC service
Figure 1: PWE3 FC Interface Reference Configuration
The following reference model describes the termination point of each
end of the PW within the PE:
+-----------------------------------+
| PE |
+---+ +-+ +-----+ +------+ +------+ +-+
| | |P| | | |PW ter| | MPLS | |P|
| |<==|h|<=| NSP |<=|minati|<=|Tunnel|<=|h|<== From PSN
| | |y| | | |on | | | |y|
| C | +-+ +-----+ +------+ +------+ +-+
| E | | |
| | +-+ +-----+ +------+ +------+ +-+
| | |P| | | |PW ter| | MPLS | |P|
| |==>|h|=>| NSP |=>|minati|=>|Tunnel|=>|h|==> To PSN
| | |y| | | |on | | | |y|
+---+ +-+ +-----+ +------+ +------+ +-+
| |
+-----------------------------------+
Figure 2: PW reference diagram
The Native Service Processing (NSP) function includes native FC
traffic processing that is required either for the proper operation
Roth, et al. Expires - July 15, 2009 [Page 7]
INTERNET DRAFT FC Encapsulation January 2009
of the FC link, or for the FC frames that are forwarded to the PW
termination point. The NSP function is outside of the scope of PWE3
and is defined by [FC-BB].
3. Encapsulation
This specification provides port to port transport of FC encapsulated
traffic. The following FC connections (as specified in [FC-BB]) are
supported over the MPLS network:
- N-Port to N-Port
- N-Port to F-Port
- E-Port to E-Port
FC Primitive Signals and FC-Port Login handling by the NSP function
within the PE is defined in [FC-BB].
3.1. The Control Word
The Generic PW Control Word, as defined in "PWE3 Control Word"
[RFC4385] MUST be used for FC PW to facilitate the transport of short
packets (by setting the Length field as detailed below), and convey
the flag bit defined below. The structure of the Control Word is as
follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 0| PT |A|0 0| Length | Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3 - Control Word structure for the one-to-one mapping mode
The first four bits of the PW Control Word MUST be set to 0 by the
ingress PE to indicate PW data.
The Flags bits are in use to convey the value of two flags, as
specified below.
PT - Payload Type indication. This field identifies the payload type
carried within the PW PDU. The following types are defined:
PT = 0: FC data frame.
PT = 1: FC login frame.
PT = 2: FC Primitive Sequence.
PT = 6: FC Control Frame (refer to [FC-BB]).
A - The Address bit identifies the frame as either a command or a
Roth, et al. Expires - July 15, 2009 [Page 8]
INTERNET DRAFT FC Encapsulation January 2009
response. This field is used in conjunction with the Poll Bit of
the Selective Retransmission protocol. Messages containing
commands MUST set this bit to 1. Messages containing responses
MUST set this bit to 0. This bit MUST be set to 0 for FC Control
frames as indicated by Payload Type value of 6. Further details
regarding the use of this flag are provided in section 6.
The fragmentation bits (bits 8-9) are not used for FC PW. These bits
may be used in the future for FC specific indications as defined in
[RFC4385].
The length field MUST be used for packets shorter than 64 bytes. Its
processing must follow the rules defined in [RFC4385].
The sequence number is not used for FC PW and MUST be set to 0 by the
ingress PE, and MUST be ignored by the egress PE. Refer to section 6
for the sequencing mechanism used for FC PW.
3.2. MTU Requirements
The MPLS PSN MUST be able to transport the largest Fibre Channel
encapsulation frame, including the overhead associated with the
tunneling protocol. The maximum frame size without PW and MPLS labels
(refer to Figure 4) is 2164 bytes. The MPLS PSN SHOULD accommodate
frames of up to 2500 bytes to support future expansion of FC frames.
Fragmentation, described in [RFC4623], SHALL NOT be used for FC PW,
therefore the network MUST be configured with a minimum MTU that is
sufficient to transport the largest encapsulation frame.
3.3. Mapping of FC traffic to PW PDU
FC frames and Primitive Sequences are transported over the PW. All
packet types are carried over a single PW. The FC header MUST contain
a FC PW Control Word and a FC Encapsulation Header. The Encapsulation
Header is described in section 6.
Each FC frame is mapped to a PW PDU, including the Start Of Frame
(SOF) delimiter, frame header, CRC field and the End Of Frame (EOF)
delimiter, as shown in figure 4. SOF and EOF frame delimiters are
encoded as specified in [FC-BB].
FC Primitive Sequences are encapsulated in a PW PDU containing the
encoded K28.5 character [FC-BB], followed by the encoded 3 data
characters, as shown in Figure 5. A PW PDU may contain one or more FC
encoded ordered sets [FC-BB]. The length field in the FC PW Control
Roth, et al. Expires - July 15, 2009 [Page 9]
INTERNET DRAFT FC Encapsulation January 2009
Word is used to indicate the packet length when the PW PDU contains a
small number of Primitive Sequences.
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
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| FC PW Control Word |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| FC Encapsulation Header |
+---------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| SOF Code | Reserved |
+---------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| |
+----- FC Frame ----+
| |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| CRC |
+---------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| EOF Code | Reserved |
+---------------+-----------------------------------------------+
Figure 4 - FC frame encapsulation within PW PDU
Idle Primitive Signals are carried over the PW in the same manner as
Primitive Sequences. Note that in both cases a PE is not required to
transport all the ordered sets received. The PE MAY implement
repetitive signal suppression functionality as part of the NSP
functionality. This is out of the scope of this document (refer to
[FC-BB] for further details).
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
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| FC PW Control Word |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| FC Encapsulation Header |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| K28.5 | Dxx.y | Dxx.y | Dxx.y |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| |
+---- ----+
| |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| K28.5 | Dxx.y | Dxx.y | Dxx.y |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
Figure 5 - FC Ordered Sets encapsulation within PW PDU
Roth, et al. Expires - July 15, 2009 [Page 10]
INTERNET DRAFT FC Encapsulation January 2009
The egress PE extracts the Primitive Sequence and Idle Primitive
Signals from the received PW PDU. It continues transmitting the same
ordered set until a FC frame or another ordered set is received over
the PW.
FC Control frames are transported over the PW, by encapsulating each
frame in a PW PDU. The FC header MUST contain a FC PW Control Word,
with PT = 6, and an all zeros FC Encapsulation Header (Selective
Retransmission does not apply to FC Control frame transmission). FC
Control Frame payload is out of scope of this document and is defined
in [FC-BB].
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
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| FC PW Control Word |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| FC Encapsulation Header |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
+----- FC Control Frame ----+
| |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 6 - FC Control frame encapsulation within PW PDU
3.4. PW failure mapping
PW failure mapping, which are detected through PW signaling failure,
PW status notifications as defined in [RFC4447], or through PW OAM
mechanisms MUST be mapped to emulated signal failure indications.
The FC link failure indication is performed by the NSP, as defined by
[FC-BB], and is out of the scope of this document.
4. Signaling of FC Pseudowires
[PWE3-CONTROL] specifies the use of the MPLS Label Distribution
Protocol, LDP, as a protocol for setting up and maintaining
pseudowires. This section describes the use of specific fields and
error codes used to control FC PW.
The PW Type field in the PWid FEC element and PW generalized ID FEC
elements MUST be set to "FC Port Mode" as requested in section 8
below.
Roth, et al. Expires - July 15, 2009 [Page 11]
INTERNET DRAFT FC Encapsulation January 2009
The Control Word is REQUIRED for FC pseudowires. Therefore the
C-Bit in the PWid FEC element and PW generalized ID FEC elements MUST
be set. If the C-Bit is not set the pseudowire MUST not be
established and a Label Release MUST be sent with an "Illegal C-Bit"
status code [PWE3-CONTROL].
4.1. Interface Parameters for FC PW
4.1.1. SR Poll Timeout (T1)
The Selective Retransmission (SR) Poll Timeout (Parameter ID = TBA by
IANA) is defined in section 6.3.5. The parameter length is 4 bytes.
The parameter value indicates the poll timeout in units of 1
millisecond.
The two PE on the edges of a FC PW MUST agree on the same value of
this parameter for the PW to be set up successfully.
4.1.2. SR Response Timeout (T2)
The Selective Retransmission Response Timeout (Parameter ID = TBA by
IANA) is defined in section 6.3.5. The parameter length is 4 bytes.
The parameter value indicates the response timeout in units of 1
microsecond. The restrictions specified in section 6.3.5 MUST be
enforced for proper operation of the SR mechanism.
The two PE on the edges of a FC PW MUST agree on the same value of
this parameter for the PW to be set up successfully.
4.1.3. SR Poll Retries (N2)
The Selective Retransmission Poll Retries (Parameter ID = TBA by
IANA) is defined in section 6.3.5. The parameter length is 4 bytes.
The parameter value is an integer indicating the number of poll
retries.
The two PE on the edges of a FC PW MUST agree on the same value of
this parameter for the PW to be set up successfully.
4.1.4. SR Window Size (k)
The Selective Retransmission Window Size (Parameter ID = TBA by IANA)
is defined in section 6.3.5. The parameter length is 4 bytes. The
parameter value is an integer indicating the maximum number of
outstanding packets.
Roth, et al. Expires - July 15, 2009 [Page 12]
INTERNET DRAFT FC Encapsulation January 2009
The two PE on the edges of a FC PW MUST agree on the same value of
this parameter for the PW to be set up successfully.
4.1.5. Fragmentation Indicator
The Fragmentation Indicator (Parameter ID = 0x09) is specified in
[RFC4446] and its usage is defined in [RFC4623].
Since fragmentation is not used in FC PW, the fragmentation indicator
parameter MUST be omitted from the Interface Parameter Sub-TLV.
5. Security Considerations
FC PW does not enhance or detract from the security properties of the
underlying MPLS PSN, rather it relies upon the PSN's mechanisms for
encryption, integrity, and authentication whenever required. The
level of security provided may be less than that of a native FC
service.
FC PW shares susceptibility to a number of pseudowire-layer attacks
and implementations SHOULD use whatever mechanisms for
confidentiality, integrity, and authentication are developed for
general PWs. These methods are beyond the scope of this document.
The protocols used to implement security in a Fibre Channel fabric
are defined in [FC-SP]. These protocols work at higher layers of the
FC hierarchy and are transparent to the FC PW.
6. Applicability Statement
FC PW allows the transport of point-to-point Fibre Channel links
while saving network bandwidth.
- The pair of CE devices operates as if they were directly connected
by an FC link. In particular they react to Primitive Sequences on
their local ACs in the standard way.
- The FC PW carries only FC data frames and a single copy of a
Primitive Sequence. Idle Primitive Signals encountered between FC
data frames, and long streams of the same Primitive Sequence are
suppressed over the PW thus saving bandwidth.
FC PW traffic can traverse controlled (i.e., providing committed
information rate for the service) networks and uncontrolled (i.e.,
providing excess information rate for the service) networks. In case
of FC PW traversing an uncontrolled network, it MUST provide TCP-
Roth, et al. Expires - July 15, 2009 [Page 13]
INTERNET DRAFT FC Encapsulation January 2009
friendly behavior under network congestion in accordance with the
specifications in [FC-flow].
Faithfulness of a FC PW may be increased if the carrying MPLS PSN is
Diffserv-enabled and implements a per-domain behavior (PDB, defined
in [RFC3086]) that guarantees low loss, low re-ordering events and
low delay. The NSP may include mechanisms to reduce the effect of
these events on the FC service. These mechanisms are out of the scope
of this document.
This document does not provide any mechanisms for protecting FC PW
against PSN outages. As a consequence, resilience of the emulated
service to such outages is defined by the PSN behavior. However, the
NSP MAY implement a mechanism to convey the PW status to the CE, to
enable faster handling of the PSN outage. Moreover, the NSP MAY
implement egress buffer and packet reordering mechanism to increase
the emulated service resiliency to fast PSN rerouting events. As a
function of the NSP this is out of the scope of this document.
7. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to assign a new PW type as follows:
PW type Description Reference
-------- -------------- ----------
0x001F FC Port Mode [FC-encap]
The above value is suggested as the next available value and the
reference [FC-encap] refers to this document.
IANA is requested to add the following entries to the Pseudowire
Interface Parameters Sub-TLV type Registry:
Parameter ID Length Description Reference
--------- --------- ------------------------ ----------
0x12 4 SR Poll Timeout (T1) [FC-encap]
0x13 4 SR Response Timeout (T2) [FC-encap]
0x14 4 SR Poll Retries (N2) [FC-encap]
0x15 4 SR Window Size (k) [FC-encap]
The parameters are defined in sections 5.1.1 through 5.1.4. The
reference [FC-encap] refers to this document.
Roth, et al. Expires - July 15, 2009 [Page 14]
INTERNET DRAFT FC Encapsulation January 2009
8. Normative References
[FC-flow] Roth, M., et al, "Reliable Fibre Channel Transport Over
MPLS Networks", RFC TBD, to appear.
RFC Editor: Please contact authors to obtain the correct
RFC number and date for the "to appear" in the above
reference prior to publication.
[RFC3985] Bryant, S., et al, "Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-Edge
(PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985, March 2005.
[RFC3916] Xiao, X., et al, "Requirements for Pseudo Wire Emulation
Edge-to-Edge (PWE3)", RFC 3916, September 2004.
[RFC3086] Nichols, K., et al, "Definition of Differentiated
Services Per Domain Behaviors and Rules for their
Specification)", RFC 3086, April 2001.
[RFC4446] Martini, L., "IANA Allocations for Pseudowire Edge to
Edge Emulation (PWE3)", RFC 4447, April 2006.
[RFC4447] Martini, L., et al, "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance
using the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 4447,
April 2006.
[RFC4385] Bryant, S., et al, "Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge
(PWE3) Control Word for use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385,
February 2006.
[RFC4623] Malis, A., Townsley, M., "PWE3 Fragmentation and
Reassembly", RFC 4623, August 2006.
[FC-BB] "Fibre Channel Backbone-4" (FC-BB-4), ANSI INCITS
419:2008, to appear.
RFC Editor: Please contact authors to obtain the correct
date for the "to appear" in the above reference prior to
publication.
[BCP14] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[FC-SP] "Fibre Channel - Security Protocols" (FC-SP), ANSI
INCITS 426:2007, February 2007.
9. Informative references
Roth, et al. Expires - July 15, 2009 [Page 15]
INTERNET DRAFT FC Encapsulation January 2009
[RFC3668] Bradner, S., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
Technology", RFC 3668, February 2004.
[RFC3821] M. Rajogopal, E. Rodriguez, "Fibre Channel over TCP/IP
(FCIP)", RFC 3821, July 2004.
[RFC3643] R. Weber, et al, "Fibre Channel (FC) Frame
Encapsulation", RFC 3643, December 2003.
[RFC4448] Martini, L., et al, "Encapsulation Methods for Transport
of Ethernet over MPLS Networks", RFC 4448, April 2006.
[RFC4842] Malis, A., et al, "SONET/SDH Circuit Emulation Over
Packet (CEP)", RFC 4842, April 2007.
[RFC4619] Martini, L., et al, "Encapsulation Methods for
Transport of Frame Relay over MPLS Networks", RFC 4619,
September 2006.
[RFC4717] Martini, L., et al, "Encapsulation Methods for Transport
of ATM over MPLS Networks", RFC 4717, December 2006.
10. Author's Addresses
Moran Roth
Corrigent Systems
101, Metro Drive
San Jose, CA 95110
Phone: +1-408-392-9292
Email: moranr@corrigent.com
Ronen Solomon
Corrigent Systems
126, Yigal Alon st.
Tel Aviv, ISRAEL
Phone: +972-3-6945316
Email: ronens@corrigent.com
Munefumi Tsurusawa
KDDI R&D Laboratories Inc.
Ohara 2-1-15, Fujimino-shi,
Saitama, Japan
Phone: +81-49-278-7828
Roth, et al. Expires - July 15, 2009 [Page 16]
INTERNET DRAFT FC Encapsulation January 2009
11. Contributing Author Information
David Zelig
Corrigent Systems
126, Yigal Alon st.
Tel Aviv, ISRAEL
Phone: +972-3-6945273
Email: davidz@corrigent.com
Leon Bruckman
Corrigent Systems
126, Yigal Alon st.
Tel Aviv, ISRAEL
Phone: +972-3-6945694
Email: leonb@corrigent.com
Luis Aguirre-Torres
Corrigent Systems
101 Metro Drive
San Jose, CA 95110
Phone: +1-408-392-9292
Email: Luis@corrigent.com
Roth, et al. Expires - July 15, 2009 [Page 17]