[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-li-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 RFC 5818

Network Working Group                                             D. Li
Internet Draft                                                    H. Xu
Category: Standards Track                                        Huawei
                                                            S. Bardalai
                                                                Fujitsu
                                                              J. Meuric
                                                         France Telecom
                                                            D. Caviglia
                                                               Ericsson

Expires: June 2010                                   December 14, 2009


                Data Channel Status Confirmation Extensions
                     for the Link Management Protocol


            draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-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.

Abstract

   This document defines simple additions to the Link Management
   Protocol (LMP) to provide a control plane tool that can assist in
   the location of stranded resources by allowing adjacent Label-
   Switching Routers (LSRs) to confirm data channel statuses, and
   provides triggers for notifying the management plane if any
   discrepancies are found. As LMP is already used to verify data plane




Li                       Expires June 2010                   [Page 1]

draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-09.txt       December 2009


   connectivity, it is considered to be an appropriate candidate to
   support this feature.

Conventions used in this document

   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].

Table of Contents


   1. Introduction.................................................2
   2. Problem Explanation..........................................4
      2.1. Mismatch Caused by Manual Configuration.................4
      2.2. Mismatch Caused by LSP Deletion.........................5
      2.3. Failed Resources........................................6
   3. Motivation...................................................6
   4. Extensions to LMP............................................7
      4.1. Confirm Data Channel Status Messages....................7
         4.1.1. ConfirmDataChannelStatus Messages..................7
         4.1.2. ConfirmDataChannelStatusAck Messages...............8
         4.1.3. ConfirmDataChannelStatusNack Messages..............8
      4.2. Data Channel Status Subobject...........................9
      4.3. Message Construction...................................10
      4.4. Backward Compatibility.................................10
   5. Procedures..................................................10
   6. Security Considerations.....................................12
   7. IANA Considerations.........................................12
      7.1. LMP Message Types......................................12
      7.2. LMP Data Link Object Subobject.........................12
   8. Acknowledgments.............................................13
   9. References..................................................13
      9.1. Normative References...................................13
      9.2. Informative References.................................13
   10. Authors' Addresses.........................................14
   11. Full Copyright Statement...................................15
   12. Intellectual Property Statement............................15
   13. Disclaimer of Validity.....................................16

1. Introduction

   Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) networks are
   constructed from Traffic Engineering (TE) links connecting Label
   Switching Routers (LSRs). The TE links are constructed from a set of
   data channels. In this context, a data channel corresponds to a



Li                       Expires June 2010                   [Page 2]

draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-09.txt       December 2009


   resource label in a non-packet technology (such as a timeslot or a
   lambda).

   A data channel status mismatch exists if the LSR at one end of a TE
   link believes that the data channel is assigned to carry data, but
   the LSR at the other end does not. The term "ready to carry data"
   means cross-connected or bound to an end-point for the receipt or
   delivery of data.

   Data channel mismatches cannot be detected from the TE information
   advertised by the routing protocols [RFC4203], [RFC5307]. The
   existence of some data channel mismatch problems may be detected by
   a mismatch in the advertised bandwidths where bidirectional TE links
   and bidirectional services are in use, but where unidirectional
   services exist, or where multiple data channel mismatches occur, it
   is not possible to detect such errors through the routing protocol-
   advertised TE information. In any case, there is no mechanism to
   isolate the mismatches by determining which data channels are at
   fault.

   If a data channel mismatch exists, any attempt to use the data
   channel for a new Label Switched Path (LSP) will fail. One end of
   the TE link may attempt to assign the TE link for use, but the other
   end will report the data channel as unavailable when the control
   plane or management plane attempts to assign it to an LSP.

   Although such a situation can be resolved through the use of the
   Acceptable Label Set object in GMPLS signaling [RFC3473], such a
   procedure is inefficient since it may require an additional
   signaling exchange for each LSP that is set up. When many LSPs are
   to be set up, and when there are many data channel mismatches, such
   inefficiencies become significant. It is desirable to avoid the
   additional signaling overhead, and to report the problems to the
   management plane so that they can be resolved to improve the
   efficiency of LSP setup.

   Correspondingly, such a mismatch situation may give rise to
   misconnections in the data plane especially when LSPs are set up
   using management plane operations.

   Resources (data channels) that are in a mismatched state are often
   described as "stranded resources". They are not in use for any LSP,
   but they cannot be assigned for use by a new LSP because they appear
   to be in use. Although it is theoretically possible for management
   plane applications to audit all network resources to locate stranded
   resources and to release them, this process is rarely performed
   because of the difficulty of coordinating different Element


Li                       Expires June 2010                   [Page 3]

draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-09.txt       December 2009


   Management Systems (EMSs), and the associated risks of accidentally
   releasing in-use resources. It is desirable to have a control plane
   mechanism that detects and reports stranded resources.

   This document defines simple additions to the Link Management
   Protocol (LMP) [RFC4204] to provide a control plane tool that can
   assist in the location of stranded resources by allowing adjacent
   LSRs to confirm data channel statuses, and provides triggers for
   notifying the management plane if any discrepancies are found. As LMP
   is already used to verify data plane connectivity, it is considered
   to be an appropriate candidate to support this feature.

2. Problem Explanation

   Examples of data channel mismatches are described in the following
   three scenarios.

   In all of the scenarios, the specific channel resource of a data link
   will be unavailable because of the data channel status mismatch, and
   this channel resource will be wasted. Furthermore, a data channel
   status mismatch may reduce the possibility of successful LSP
   establishment, because a data channel status mismatch may result in
   failure when establishing an LSP.

   So it is desirable to confirm the data channel statuses as early as
   possible.

2.1. Mismatch Caused by Manual Configuration

   The operator may have configured a cross-connect at only one end of
   a TE link using an EMS. The resource at one end of the data channel
   is allocated, but the corresponding resource is still available at
   the other end of the same data channel. In this case, the data
   channel may appear to be available for use by the control plane when
   viewed from one end of the TE link, but will be considered to be
   unavailable by the other end of the TE link. Alternatively, the
   available end of the data channel may be cross-connected by the
   management plane and a misconnection may result from the fact that
   the other end of the data channel is already cross-connected.

   Figure 1 shows a data channel between nodes A and B. The resource at
   A's end of the TE link is allocated through manual configuration,
   while the resource at B's end of the TE link available, so the data
   channel status is mismatched.

                    allocated      available



Li                       Expires June 2010                   [Page 4]

draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-09.txt       December 2009


                       +-+------------+-+
                    A  |x|            | |  B
                       +-+------------+-+
                            data channel
         Figure 1. Mismatch caused by manual configuration

2.2. Mismatch Caused by LSP Deletion

   The channel status of a data link may become mismatched during the
   LSP deletion process. If the LSP deletion process is aborted in the
   middle of the process (perhaps because of a temporary control plane
   failure), the cross-connect at the upstream node may be removed while
   the downstream node still keeps its cross-connect, if the LSP
   deletion was initiated by the source node.

   For example, in Figure 2 an LSP traverses nodes A, B, and C. Node B
   resets abnormally when the LSP is being deleted. This results in the
   cross-connects of node A and C being removed, but the cross-connect
   of node B still being in use. So the data channel statuses between
   nodes A and B, and between nodes B and C are both mismatched.

                       <---------LSP--------->
                       +-+-------+-+-------+-+
                       | |       |X|       | |
                       +-+-------+-+-------+-+
                        A         B         C
             Figure 2. Mismatch caused by LSP deletion

   In [RFC2205] and [RFC3209], a soft state mechanism was defined to
   prevent state discrepancies between LSRs. Resource ReserVation
   Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) restart processes ([RFC3473],
   [RFC5063]) have been defined: adjacent LSRs may resynchronize their
   control plane state to reinstate information about LSPs that have
   persisted in the data plane. Both mechanisms aim at keeping state
   consistency among nodes and allow LSRs to detect mismatched data
   plane states. The data plane handling of such mismatched state can be
   treated as a local policy decision. Some deployments may decide to
   automatically clean up the data plane state so it matches the control
   plane state, but others may choose to raise an alert to the
   management plane and leave the data plane untouched just in case it
   is in use.

   In such cases, data channel mismatches may arise after restart and
   might not be cleared up by the restart procedures.



Li                       Expires June 2010                   [Page 5]

draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-09.txt       December 2009


2.3. Failed Resources

   Even if the situation is not common, it might happen that a
   termination point of a TE-link is seen as failed by one end, while
   on the other end it is seen as OK. This problem may arise due to
   some failure either in the hardware or in the status detection of
   the termination point.

   This mismatch in the termination point status can lead to failure
   in case of bidirectional LSP set-up.

                      Good           Failed
                       +-+------------+-+
                    A  | |            |X|  B
                       +-+------------+-+
                          data channel
               Path Message with Upstream Label---->

               Figure 3. Mismatch caused by resource failure

   In this case upstream node chooses to use termination point A in
   order to receive traffic from downstream node. From the upstream
   node's point of view, the resource is available thus usable; however,
   in the downstream node, the corresponding termination point (resource
   B) is broken. This leads to a set-up failure.

3. Motivation

   The requirement does not come from a lack in GMPLS specifications
   themselves but rather from operational concerns because, in most
   cases, GMPLS-controlled networks will co-exist with legacy networks
   and legacy procedures.

   The protocol extensions defined in this document are intended to
   detect data plane problems resulting from mis-use or mis-
   configurations triggered by user error, or resulting from failure to
   clean up the data plane after control plane disconnection. It is
   anticipated that human mistake is probably the major source of errors
   to deal with. It is not the intention to provide a protocol mechanism
   to deal with broken implementations.

   The procedures defined in this document are designed to be operated
   on a periodic or on-demand basis. It is NOT RECOMMENDED that the
   procedures be used to provide a continuous and on-line monitoring
   process.



Li                       Expires June 2010                   [Page 6]

draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-09.txt       December 2009


   As LMP is already used to verify data plane connectivity, it is
   considered to be an appropriate candidate to support this feature.

4. Extensions to LMP

   A control plane tool to detect and isolate data channel mismatches is
   provided in this document by simple additions to the Link Management
   Protocol (LMP) [RFC4204]. It can assist in the location of stranded
   resources by allowing adjacent LSRs to confirm data channel statuses.

   Outline procedures are described in this section. More detailed
   procedures are found in Section 5.

   The message formats in the sections that follow use Backus-Naur Form
   (BNF) encoding as defined in [RFC5511].

4.1. Confirm Data Channel Status Messages

   Extensions to LMP to confirm a data channel status are described
   below. In order to confirm a data channel status, the new LMP
   messages are sent between adjacent nodes periodically or driven by
   some event (such as an operator command, a configurable timer, or the
   rejection of an LSP setup message because of an unavailable resource).
   The new LMP messages run over the control channel, encapsulated in
   UDP with an LMP port number and IP addressing as defined in Link
   Management Protocol (LMP) [RFC4204].

   Three new messages are defined to check data channel status:
   ConfirmDataChannelStatus, ConfirmDataChannelStatusAck,
   ConfirmDataChannelStatusNack, which are described in detail in the
   following sections. Message Type numbers are found in Section 7.1.

4.1.1. ConfirmDataChannelStatus Messages

   The ConfirmDataChannelStatus message is used to tell the remote end
   of the data channel what the status of the local end of the data
   channel is, and to ask the remote end to report its data channel. The
   message may report on (and request information about) more than one
   data channel.

   <ConfirmDataChannelStatus Message> ::= <Common Header>
                                          <LOCAL_LINK_ID>
                                          <MESSAGE_ID>
                                          <DATA_LINK>[<DATA_LINK>...]

   When a node receives the ConfirmDataChannelStatus message, and the
   data channel status confirmation procedure is supported at the node,


Li                       Expires June 2010                   [Page 7]

draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-09.txt       December 2009


   the node compares its own data channel statuses with all of the data
   channel statuses sent by the remote end in the
   ConfirmDataChannelStatus message. If a data channel status mismatch
   is found, this mismatch result is expected to be reported to the
   management plane for further action. Management plane reporting
   procedures and actions are outside the scope of this document.

   If the message is a Confirm Data Channel Status message, and the
   Message_Id value is less than the largest Message_Id value previously
   received from the sender for the specified TE link, then the message
   SHOULD be treated as being out-of-order.

4.1.2. ConfirmDataChannelStatusAck Messages

   The ConfirmDataChannelStatusAck message is sent back to the node
   which originated the ConfirmDataChannelStatus message to return the
   requested data channel statuses.

   When the ConfirmDataChannelStatusAck message is received, the node
   compares the received data channel statuses at the remote end with
   those at the local end (the same operation as performed by the
   receiver of the ConfirmDataChannelStatus message). If a data channel
   status mismatch is found, the mismatch result is expected to be
   reported to the management plane for further action.

   <ConfirmDataChannelStatusAck Message> ::= <Common Header>
                                             <MESSAGE_ID_ACK>
                                             <DATA_LINK>[<DATA_LINK>...]


   The contents of the MESSAGE_ID_ACK objects MUST be obtained from the
   ConfirmDataChannelStatus message being acknowledged.

   Note that the ConfirmDataChannelStatusAck message is used both when
   the data channel statuses match and when they do not match.

4.1.3. ConfirmDataChannelStatusNack Messages

   When a node receives the ConfirmDataChannelStatus message, if the
   data channel status confirmation procedure is not supported but the
   message is recognized, a ConfirmDataChannelStatusNack message
   containing an ERROR_CODE indicating "Channel Status Confirmation
   Procedure not supported" MUST be sent.

   If the data channel status confirmation procedure is supported, but
   the node is unable to begin the procedure, a
   ConfirmDataChannelStatusNack message containing an ERROR_CODE


Li                       Expires June 2010                   [Page 8]

draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-09.txt       December 2009


   indicating "Unwilling to Confirm" MUST be sent. If a
   ConfirmDataChannelStatusNack message is received with such an
   ERROR_CODE, the node which originated the ConfirmDataChannelStatus
   message MAY schedule the ConfirmDataChannelStatus message
   retransmission after a configured time. A default value of 10 minutes
   is suggested for this timer.

   <ConfirmDataChannelStatusNack Message> ::= <Common Header>
                                              [<LOCAL_LINK_ID>]
                                              <MESSAGE_ID_ACK>
                                              <ERROR_CODE>

   The contents of the MESSAGE_ID_ACK objects MUST be obtained from the
   ConfirmDataChannelStatus message being rejected.

4.2. Data Channel Status Subobject

   A new Data Channel Status subobject type is introduced to the DATA
   LINK object to hold the data channel status and Data Channel
   Identification.

   See Section 7.2 for the Subobject Type value.

    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       |    Length     |     Data Channel Status       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   //                      Data Channel ID                        //
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Data Channel Status:

   This is a series of bit flags to indicate the status of the data
   channel. The following values are defined.

   0x0000 : The channel is available/free.
   0x0001 : The channel is unavailable/in-use.

   Data Channel ID

   This identifies the data channel. The length of this field can be
   deduced from the Length field in the subobject. Note that all
   subobjects must be padded to a four byte boundary with trailing zeros.



Li                       Expires June 2010                   [Page 9]

draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-09.txt       December 2009


   If such padding is required, the Length field MUST indicate the
   length of the subobject up to, but not including, the first byte of
   padding. Thus, the amount of padding is deduced and not represented
   in the Length field.

   Note that the Data Channel ID is given in the context of the sender
   of the ConfirmChannelStatus message.

   The data-channel ID must be encoded as a label value. Based on the
   type of signal e.g. SONET/SDH, Lambda etc. the encoding methodology
   used will be different. For SONET/SDH the label value is encoded as
   per [RFC4606].

4.3. Message Construction

   Data_Link Class is included in ConfirmDataChannelStatus and
   ConfirmDataChannelStatusAck messages, which is defined in section
   13.12 in [RFC4204].

   The status of the TE link end MUST be carried by the Data Channel
   Status subobject which is defined in section 4.2 of this document.
   The new subobject MUST be part of Data_Link Class.

   In the case of SDH/SONET, DATA Channel ID in the new subobject SHOULD
   be used to identify each timeslot of the data link.

4.4. Backward Compatibility

   Some nodes running in the network may only support the LMP Message
   Types, which are already defined in [RFC4204]. The three new types of
   LMP message defined in this document can not be recognized by these
   nodes. The unknown message behavior is not being specified in
   [RFC4204], it's suggested to discard the unknown message silently.
   The mechanism defined in this document presumes a certain non-
   standard behavior of existing/non-document supporting nodes. To use
   this mechanism all nodes MUST have the extensions described in this
   document for compatibility.

5. Procedures

   Adjacent nodes MAY send data channel status confirmation related LMP
   messages. Periodical timers or some other events requesting the
   confirmation of channel status for the data link may trigger these
   messages. It's a local policy decision to start the data channel
   status confirmation process. The procedure is described below:




Li                       Expires June 2010                  [Page 10]

draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-09.txt       December 2009


   . Initially, the SENDER constructs a ConfirmDataChannelStatus
      message which MUST contain one or more DATA_LINK objects.
      DATA_LINK object is defined in [RFC4204]. Each DATA_LINK object
      MUST contain one or more Data Channel Status subobjects. The Data
      Channel ID field in the Data Channel Status subobject MUST
      indicate which data channel needs to be confirmed, and MUST report
      the data channel status at the SENDER. The
      ConfirmDataChannelStatus message is sent to the RECEIVER.

   . Upon reception of a ConfirmDataChannelStatus message, the RECEIVER
      MUST extract the data channel statuses from the
      ConfirmDataChannelStatus message, and SHOULD compare these with
      its data channel statuses for the reported data channels. If a
      data channel status mismatch is found, the mismatch result SHOULD
      be reported to the management plane for further action. The
      RECEIVER also SHOULD send the ConfirmDataChannelStatusAck message
      which MUST carry all the local end statuses of the requested data
      channels to the SENDER.

   . If the RECEIVER is not able to support or to begin the
      confirmation procedure, the ConfirmDataChannelStatusNack message
      MUST be responded with the ERROR_CODE which indicates the reason
      of rejection.

   . Upon reception of a ConfirmDataChannelStatusAck message, the
      SENDER MUST compare the received data channel statuses at the
      remote end with the data channel statuses at the local end. If a
      data channel status mismatch is found, the mismatch result SHOULD
      be reported to the management plane for further action.

   The data channel status mismatch issue identified by LMP may be
   automatically resolved by RSVP restart. For example, the restarting
   node may also have damaged its data plane. This leaves the data
   channels mismatched. But RSVP restart will re-install the data plane
   state in the restarting node. The issue may also be resolved via RSVP
   soft state timeout.

   If the ConfirmDataChannelStatus message is not recognized by the
   RECEIVER, the RECEIVER ignores this message, and will not send out an
   acknowledgment message to the SENDER.

   Due to message loss problem, the SENDER may not be able to receive
   the acknowledgment message.

   ConfirmDataChannelStatus SHOULD be sent using LMP [RFC4204] reliable
   transmission mechanisms. If after the retry limit is reached, a
   ConfirmDataChannelStatusAck message or a ConfirmDataChannelStatusNack


Li                       Expires June 2010                  [Page 11]

draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-09.txt       December 2009


   message is not received by the SENDER, the SENDER SHOULD terminate
   the data channel confirmation procedure.

6. Security Considerations

   [RFC4204] describes how LMP messages between peers can be secured,
   and these measures are equally applicable to the new messages defined
   in this document.

   The operation of the procedures described in this document does not
   of themselves constitute a security risk since they do not cause any
   change in network state. It would be possible, if the messages were
   intercepted or spoofed to cause bogus alerts in the management plane
   and so the use of the LMP security measures are RECOMMENDED.

   Note that operating the procedures described in this document may
   provide a useful additional security measure to verify that data
   channels have not been illicitly modified.

7. IANA Considerations

7.1. LMP Message Types

   IANA maintains the "Link Management Protocol (LMP)" registry which
   has a subregistry called "LMP Message Type". IANA is requested to
   make three new allocations from this registry as follows. The message
   type values are suggested and to be confirmed by IANA.

   Value    Description
   ------   ---------------------------------
     32     ConfirmDataChannelStatus
     33     ConfirmDataChannelStatusAck
     34     ConfirmDataChannelStatusNack


7.2. LMP Data Link Object Subobject

   IANA maintains the "Link Management Protocol (LMP)" registry which
   has a subregistry called "LMP Object Class name space and Class type
   (C-Type)". This subregistry has an entry for the DATA_LINK object,
   and there is a further embedded registry called "DATA_LINK Sub-object
   Class name space". IANA is requested to make the following allocation
   from this embedded registry. The value shown is suggested and to be
   confirmed by IANA.





Li                       Expires June 2010                  [Page 12]

draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-09.txt       December 2009


   Value    Description
   ------   ---------------------------------
     9      Data Channel Status


8. Acknowledgments

   We would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Dimitri Papadimitriou, Lou
   Berger for their useful comments.

9. References

9.1. Normative References

   [RFC2119]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
               Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC4204]   J. Lang, Ed., "Link Management Protocol (LMP)", RFC 4204,
               October 2005.

   [RFC5511]   A. Farrel, Ed., "Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF): A
               Syntax Used to Form Encoding Rules in Various Routing
               Protocol Specifications", RFC 5511, April 2009.

9.2. Informative References

   [RFC2205]  R. Braden, Ed., "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) --
               Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September
               1997

   [RFC3209]  D. Awduche, L. Berger, D. Gan, T. Li, V. Srinivasan, G.
               Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels",
               RFC 3209, December 2001

   [RFC3473]  L. Berger, Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
               Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation
               Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC
               3473, January 2003

   [RFC5063]  A. Satyanarayana, R. Rahman, "Extensions to GMPLS RSVP
               Graceful Restart", RFC 5063, September 2007

   [RFC4203]  K. Kompella, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in Support of
               Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC
               4203, October 2005




Li                       Expires June 2010                  [Page 13]

draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-09.txt       December 2009


   [RFC4606]   E. Mannie, Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
               Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for Synchronous Optical
               Network (SONET) and Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH)
               Control", RFC 4606, August 2006

   [RFC5307]  K. Kompella, Ed., "IS-IS Extensions in Support of
               Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC
               5307, October 2008

10. Authors' Addresses

   Dan Li
   Huawei Technologies
   F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base,
   Shenzhen 518129 China

   Phone: +86 755-289-70230
   Email: danli@huawei.com


   Huiying Xu
   Huawei Technologies
   F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base,
   Shenzhen 518129 China

   Phone: +86 755-289-72910
   Email: xuhuiying@huawei.com


   Fatai Zhang
   Huawei Technologies
   F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base,
   Shenzhen 518129 China

   Phone: +86 755-289-72912
   Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com


   Snigdho C. Bardalai
   Fujitsu Network Communications
   2801 Telecom Parkway,
   Richardson, Texas 75082, USA

   Phone: +1 972 479 2951
   Email: snigdho.bardalai@us.fujitsu.com




Li                       Expires June 2010                  [Page 14]

draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-09.txt       December 2009


   Julien Meuric
   France Telecom Orange Labs
   2, avenue Pierre Marzin
   22307 Lannion Cedex, France

   Phone: +33 2 96 05 28 28
   Email: julien.meuric@orange-ftgroup.com


   Diego Caviglia
   Ericsson
   Via A. Negrone 1/A 16153
   Genoa Italy

   Phone: +39 010 600 3736
   Email: diego.caviglia@ericsson.com


11. Full Copyright Statement

   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 in effect on the date of
   publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10,
   2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
   the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
   not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.

12. Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF Trust takes no position regarding the validity or scope of
   any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be
   claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology
   described in any IETF Document or the extent to which any license


Li                       Expires June 2010                  [Page 15]

draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-09.txt       December 2009


   under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it
   represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any
   such rights.

   Copies of Intellectual Property disclosures made to the IETF
   Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or
   the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or
   permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or
   users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR
   repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   any standard or specification contained in an IETF Document. Please
   address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.

13. Disclaimer of Validity

   All IETF Documents and the information contained therein are provided
   on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
   REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE
   IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL
   WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY
   WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION THEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE
   ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
   FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in
   effect on the date of publication of this document
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.

















Li                       Expires June 2010                  [Page 16]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/