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]