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

Versions: (draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-node-cap) 00 01 02 03 04 05 RFC 5073

Network Working Group                              J.P. Vasseur (Editor)
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
IETF Internet Draft                                J.L. Le Roux (Editor)
                                                          France Telecom
Proposed Status: Standard Track                              S. Yasukawa
Expires: December 2006                                               NTT
                                                              S. Previdi
                                                               P. Psenak
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                              Paul Mabey
                                                                 Comcast





                                                               June 2006


       Routing extensions for discovery of Traffic Engineering Node
                               Capabilities

                  draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-01.txt


Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of 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.






Vasseur, Le Roux, et al.                                        [Page 1]

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-01.txt        June 2006



Abstract

   It is highly desired in several cases, to take into account Traffic
   Engineering (TE) node capabilities during TE LSP path selection, such
   as for instance the capability to act as a branch LSR of a P2MP LSP.
   This requires advertising these capabilities within the IGP.
   For that purpose, this document specifies OSPF and IS-IS traffic
   engineering extensions for the advertisement of control plane and
   data plane traffic engineering node capabilities.

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 RFC-2119.

Table of Contents

   1.      Terminology.................................................3
   2.      Introduction................................................3
   3.      TE Node Capability Descriptor...............................4
   3.1.    Description.................................................4
   3.2.    Required Information........................................4
   4.      TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV formats...................5
   4.1.    OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV format...............5
   4.1.1.  The DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV..................................5
   4.1.2.  The CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV...............................6
   4.2.    IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV format..............7
   4.2.1.  DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV......................................8
   4.2.2.  CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV...................................8
   5.      Elements of procedure.......................................9
   5.1.    OSPF........................................................9
   5.2.    IS-IS......................................................10
   6.      Backward compatibility.....................................10
   7.      Security Considerations....................................10
   8.      IANA considerations........................................10
   8.1.    OSPF TLVs..................................................10
   8.2.    ISIS TLVs..................................................11
   8.3.    Capability bits............................................11
   9.      Acknowledgments............................................12
   10.     References.................................................12
   10.1.   Normative references.......................................12
   10.2.   Informative References.....................................13
   11.     Editors Address............................................13
   12.     Contributors address.......................................14
   13.     Intellectual Property Statement............................14






Vasseur, Le Roux, et al.                                      [Page 2]

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-01.txt        June 2006


1. Terminology

   This document uses terminologies defined in [RFC3031], [RFC3209] and
   [RFC4461].


2. Introduction

   MPLS Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) routing ([IS-IS-TE], [OSPF-TE])
   relies on extensions to link state IGP routing protocols ([OSPF-v2],
   [IS-IS]) in order to advertise Traffic Engineering (TE) link
   information used for constraint based routing. Further Generalized
   MPLS (GMPLS) related routing extensions are defined in [IS-IS-G] and
   [OSPF-G].

   It is desired to complement these routing extensions in order to
   advertise TE node capabilities, in addition to TE link information.
   These TE node capabilities will be taken into account as constraints
   during path selection.

   Indeed, it is useful to advertise data plane TE node capabilities,
   such as, for instance the capability for an LSR to be a branch LSR or
   a bud-LSR of a P2MP LSP. These capabilities can then be taken into
   account as constraints when computing TE LSP paths.

   It is also useful to advertise control plane TE node capabilities
   such as for instance the capability to support GMPLS signaling for a
   packet LSR, or the capability to support P2MP (Point to Multipoint)
   TE LSP signaling.  This allows selecting a path that avoids nodes
   that do not support a given signaling feature, or triggering a
   mechanism to support such nodes. Hence this facilitates backward
   compatibility.

   For that purpose, this document specifies IGP (OSPF and IS-IS)
   traffic engineering node capability TLVs in order to advertise data
   plane and control plane capabilities of a node.

   A new TLV is defined for ISIS and OSPF: the TE Node Capability
   Descriptor TLV, to be carried within:
        - The ISIS Capability TLV ([ISIS-CAP]) for ISIS
        - The Router Information LSA ([OSPF-CAP]) for OSPF.












Vasseur, Le Roux, et al.                                      [Page 3]

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-01.txt        June 2006




3. TE Node Capability Descriptor

3.1. Description

   LSRs in a network may have distinct control plane and data plane
   Traffic Engineering capabilities. The TE Node Capability Descriptor
   information defined in this document describes data and control plane
   capabilities of an LSR. Such information can be used for instance
   during path computation so as to avoid nodes that do not support a
   given TE feature either in the control or data plane or to trigger
   procedure to handle these nodes along the path (e.g trigger LSP
   hierarchy to support a legacy transit LSR on a P2MP LSP (see [RSVP-
   P2MP]). In some cases, this may also be useful to ensure backward
   compatibility.

3.2. Required Information

   The TE Node Capability Descriptor contains two variable length sets
   of bit flags:
        - The Data Plane Capabilities: This a variable length
   set of bit flags where each bit corresponds to a given TE data plane
   capability.
        - The Control Plane Capabilities: This a variable length
   set of bit flags where each bit corresponds to a given TE control
   plane capability.

   Two Data Plane Capabilities are currently defined:
            - B bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR can act
              as a branch node on a P2MP LSP (see [P2MP-REQ]);
            - E bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR can act
              as a bud LSR on a P2MP LSP, i.e. an LSR that is both
              transit and egress (see [P2MP-REQ]).

   Three Control Plane Capabilities are currently defined:
            - M bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR supports
              MPLS-TE signaling ([RSVP-TE]);
            - G bit: when set this flag indicates that the LSR supports
              GMPLS signaling ([RSVP-G]);
            - P bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR supports
              P2MP MPLS-TE signaling ([RSVP-P2MP]).

   Note that new capability bits may be added in the future if required.
   Also more complex capabilities encoded within sub-TLVs may be added
   in the future if required.







Vasseur, Le Roux, et al.                                      [Page 4]

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-01.txt        June 2006





4. TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV formats

4.1. OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV format

   The OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is made of various non-
   ordered sub-TLVs.

   The format of the OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV and its sub-
   TLVs is the same as the TLV format used by the Traffic Engineering
   Extensions to OSPF [OSPF-TE]. That is, the TLV is composed of 2
   octets for the type, 2 octets specifying the TLV length and a value
   field.  The TLV is padded to four-octet alignment; padding is not
   included in the length field (so a three octet value would have a
   length of three, but the total size of the TLV would be eight
   octets).  Sub-TLVs are also 32-bit aligned.  Unrecognized types are
   ignored.  All types between 32768 and 65535 are reserved for vendor-
   specific extensions.  All other undefined type codes are reserved for
   future assignment by IANA.

   The OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV has the following format:

         TYPE     To be defined by IANA
         LENGHT   Variable
         VALUE    This comprises one or more sub-TLVs

   Currently two sub-TLVs are defined:
            Sub-TLV type  Length               Name
                1      variable     DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV
                2      variable     CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV

   Any unrecognized sub-TLV MUST be silently ignored.

   More sub-TLVs could be added in the future to handle new
   capabilities.

   The OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is carried within an OSPF
   Router Information LSA which is defined in [OSPF-CAP].


4.1.1. The DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV

   The DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV is a series of bit flags, where each bit
   correspond to a data plane TE node capability, and has a variable
   length.

   The format of the DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV is as follows:

         TYPE     To be assigned by IANA (suggested value =1)
         LENGTH   It is set to N x 4 octets.  N starts

Vasseur, Le Roux, et al.                                      [Page 5]

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-01.txt        June 2006


                  from 1 and can be increased when there is a need.
                  Each 4 octets are referred to as a capability flag.
         VALUE    This comprises one or more capability flags.
                  For each 4 octets, the bits are indexed from the most
                  significant to the least significant, where each bit
                  represents one data plane TE node capability.  When
                  the first 32 capabilities are defined, a new
                  capability flag will be used to accommodate the next
                  capability. These bits are under IANA control.

   The following bits are defined the first capability flag:

      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |B|E|                     Reserved                              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


     Bit       Capabilities

      0      B bit: P2MP Branch Node capability: When set this indicates
             that the LSR can act as a branch node on a P2MP LSP
             [P2MP-REQ];
      1      E bit: P2MP Bud-LSR capability: When set, this indicates
             that the LSR can act as a bud LSR on a P2MP LSP, i.e. an
             LSR that is both transit and egress [P2MP-REQ];

   The values for the B and E bits are to be assigned by IANA.

     2-31    Reserved for future assignments by IANA.


4.1.2. The CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV

   The CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV is a series of bit flags, where each
   bit correspond to a control plane TE node capability, and has a
   variable length.

   The format of the CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV is as follows:


         TYPE     To be assigned by IANA (suggested value = 2)
         LENGHT   It is set to N x 4 octets.  N starts
                  from 1 and can be increased when there is a need.
                  Each 4 octets are referred to as a capability flag.
         VALUE    This comprises one or more capability flags.
                  For each 4 octets, the bits are indexed from the most
                  significant to the least significant, where each bit
                  represents one control plane TE node capability.  When
                  the first 32 capabilities are defined, a new
                  capability flag will be used to accommodate the next
                  capability. These bits are under IANA control.


Vasseur, Le Roux, et al.                                      [Page 6]

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-01.txt        June 2006



   The following bits are defined in the first capability:


      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |M|G|P|                   Reserved                              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


       Bit          Capabilities

        0          M bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports
                   MPLS-TE signaling ([RSVP-TE]).

        1          G bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports
                   GMPLS signaling ([RSVP-G]).

        2          P bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports
                   P2MP MPLS-TE signaling ([RSVP-P2MP]).

       3-31        Reserved for future assignments by IANA

   The values for the M, G and P bits are to be assigned by IANA.


4.2. IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV format

   The IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is made of various non
   ordered sub-TLVs.

   The format of the IS-IS TE Node Capability TLV and its sub-TLVs is
   the same as the TLV format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions
   to IS-IS [IS-IS-TE]. That is, the TLV is composed of 1 octet for the
   type, 1 octet specifying the TLV length and a value field.

   The IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV has the following format:

      TYPE: To be assigned by IANA
      LENGTH: Variable, from 3 to 255
      VALUE: set of one or more sub-TLVs

   Currently two sub-TLVs are defined:
               Sub-TLV type  Length               Name
                  1         variable     DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV
                  2         variable     CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV

   Any unrecognized sub-TLV MUST be silently ignored. More sub-TLVs
   could be added in the future to handle new capabilities.

   The IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is carried within an IS-
   IS CAPABILITY TLV which is defined in [ISIS-CAP].

Vasseur, Le Roux, et al.                                      [Page 7]

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-01.txt        June 2006



4.2.1. DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV

   The DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV is a series of bit flags, where each bit
   correspond to a data plane TE node capability, and has a variable
   length. These bits are under IANA control.

   The DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV has the following format:

      TYPE:   To be assigned by IANA (Suggested value =1)
      LENGTH: It is set to N. N starts from 1 and can be increased when
              there is a need. Each octet is referred to as a
              capability flag.
      VALUE: This comprises one or more data plane TE node capability
             flags.

   The following bits are defined in the first capability flag:

   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |B|E| Reserved  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   B bit: P2MP Branch node capability: When set this indicates
          that the LSR can act as a branch node on a P2MP LSP
          ([P2MP-REQ]).
   E bit: P2MP bud-LSR capability: When set, this indicates
          that the LSR can act as a bud LSR on a P2MP LSP, i.e. an
          LSR that is both transit and egress ([P2MP-REQ]).

   Reserved bits are for future assignment by IANA

   The values for the B and E bits are to be assigned by IANA.


4.2.2. CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV

   The CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV is a series of bit flags, where each
   bit correspond to a control plane TE node capability, and has a
   variable length. These bits are under IANA control.

   The CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV has the following format:

      TYPE:   To be assigned by IANA (suggested value = 2)
      LENGTH: It is set to N. N starts from 1 and can be increased
              when there is a need. Each octet is referred to as a
              capability flag.
      VALUE: This comprises one or more control plane TE node capability
             flags.




Vasseur, Le Roux, et al.                                      [Page 8]

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-01.txt        June 2006




   The following bits defined in the first capability flag:

   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |M|G|P|Reserved |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

    -M bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports MPLS-TE
            signaling ([RSVP-TE]).

    -G bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports GMPLS signaling
            ([RSVP-G]).

    -P bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports P2MP MPLS-TE
            signaling ([RSVP-P2MP]).

     Reserved bits are for future assignment by IANA.

   The values for the M, G and P bits are to be assigned by IANA.


5. Elements of procedure

5.1. OSPF

   The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is advertised, within an OSPFv2
   Router Information LSA (Opaque type of 4 and Opaque ID of 0)
   or OSPFv3 Router information LSA (function code of 12) which are
   defined in [OSPF-CAP].  As such, elements of procedure are inherited
   from those defined in [OSPF-CAP].

   The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV advertises capabilities that
   may be taken into account as constraints during path selection. Hence
   its flooding scope is area-local, and it MUST be carried within
   OSPFv2 type 10 Router Information LSA (as defined in [RFC2370]) or an
   OSPFv3 Router Information LSA with the S1 bit set and the S2 bit
   cleared (as defined in [OSPFv3]).

   A router MUST originate a new OSPF router information LSA whenever
   the content of any of the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV changes
   or whenever required by the regular OSPF procedure (LSA refresh
   (every LSRefreshTime)).

   The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is OPTIONAL and must at most
   appear once in an OSPF Router Information LSA or ISIS Router
   Capability TLV.

   When an OSPF LSA or ISIS LSP does not contain any TE Node capability
   Descriptor TLV, this means that the TE Capabilities of that LSR are
   unknown.

Vasseur, Le Roux, et al.                                      [Page 9]

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-01.txt        June 2006



   Note that a change in any of these capabilities MAY trigger CSPF
   computation, but MUST not trigger normal SPF computation.

   Note also that TE node capabilities are expected to be fairly static.

5.2. IS-IS

   The TE Node Capability TLV is carried within an IS-IS CAPABILITY TLV
   defined in [IS-IS-CAP]. As such, elements of procedure are inherited
   from those defined in [IS-IS-CAP].

   The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV advertises capabilities that
   may be taken into account as constraints during path selection. Hence
   its flooding is area-local, and MUST be carried within an IS-IS
   CAPABILITY TLV having the S flag cleared.

   An IS-IS router MUST originate a new IS-IS LSP whenever the content
   of any of the TE Node Capability TLV changes or whenever required by
   the regular IS-IS procedure (LSP refresh).

   The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is OPTIONAL and must at most
   appear once in an OSPF Router Information LSA or ISIS Router
   Capability TLV.

   When a IS-IS LSP does not contain any TE Node capability Descriptor
   TLV, this means that the TE Capabilities of that LSR are unknown.

   Note that a change in any of these capabilities MAY trigger CSPF
   computation, but MUST not trigger normal SPF computation.

   Note also that TE node capabilities are expected to be fairly static.

6. Backward compatibility

   The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLVs defined in this document do
   not introduce any interoperability issue. For OSPF, a router not
   supporting the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV MUST just silently
   ignore the TLV as specified in [OSPF-CAP]. For IS-IS a router not
   supporting the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV MUST just silently
   ignore the TLV as specified in [IS-IS-CAP].

7. Security Considerations

   No new security issues are raised in this document.

8. IANA considerations

8.1. OSPF TLVs

   IANA is in charge of the assignment of TLV code points for the Router
   Information LSA defined in [OSPF-CAP].

Vasseur, Le Roux, et al.                                     [Page 10]

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-01.txt        June 2006


   IANA will assign a new codepoint for the TE Node Capability
   Descriptor TLV defined in this document and carried within the Router
   Information LSA.

   IANA will be in charge of the assignment of sub-TLV code points for
   the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV defined in this document.
   Two sub-TLVs types are defined for this TLV and should be assigned by
   IANA:
        -CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV (suggested value =1)
        -DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV (suggested value =2)

8.2. ISIS TLVs

   IANA is in charge of the assignment of sub-TLV code points for the
   ISIS CAPABILITY TLV defined in [ISIS-CAP].
   IANA will assign a new codepoint for the TE Node Capability
   Descriptor TLV defined in this document, and carried within the ISIS
   CAPABILITY TLV.

   IANA will be in charge of the assignment of sub-TLV code points for
   the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV defined in this document.
   Two sub-TLVs types are defined for this TLV and should be assigned by
   IANA:
        -CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV (suggested value =1)
        -DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV (suggested value =2)

8.3. Capability bits

   IANA is requested to manage the space of control plane and data plane
   capability bit flags carried within the OSPF and ISIS TE Node
   Capability Descriptor TLVs, numbering them in the usual IETF notation
   starting at zero and continuing at least through 31.
   New bit numbers may be allocated only by an IETF Consensus action.
   Each bit should be tracked with the following qualities:
      - Bit number
      - Defining RFC
      - Name of bit

   Currently two capabilies are defined in the data plane capability
   flags and must be assigned by IANA. Here are the suggested values:
      -0x01: P2MP Branch LSR capability
      -0x02: P2MP Bud LSR capability

   Currently three capabilities are defined in the control plane
   capability flags and must be assigned by IANA. Here are the suggested
   values:
      -0x01: MPLS-TE support
      -0x02: GMPLS support
      -0x04: P2MP RSVP-TE support




Vasseur, Le Roux, et al.                                     [Page 11]

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-01.txt        June 2006


9. Acknowledgments

   We would like to thank Benoit Fondeviole, Adrian Farrel, Dimitri
   Papadimitriou, Acee Lindem and David Ward for their useful comments
   and suggestions.

   We would also like to thank authors of [LSP-ATTRIBUTE] and [OSPF-CAP]
   from which some text of this document has been inspired.

10. References

10.1. Normative references

   [RFC] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to indicate
   requirements levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.

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

   [RFC3667] Bradner, S., "IETF Rights in Contributions", BCP 78, RFC
   3667, February 2004.

   [BCP79] Bradner, S., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
   Technology", RFC 3979, March 2005.

   [OSPF-v2] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998.

   [OSPF-v3] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., and J. Moy, "OSPF for IPv6",
             RFC 2740, December 1999.

   [RFC2370] Coltun, R., "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 2370,
             July 1998.

   [IS-IS] "Intermediate System to Intermediate System Intra-Domain
   Routing Exchange Protocol " ISO 10589.

   [IS-IS-IP] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
   dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990.

   [OSPF-TE] Katz, D., Yeung, D., Kompella, K., "Traffic Engineering
   Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September 2003.

   [IS-IS-TE] Li, T., Smit, H., "IS-IS extensions for Traffic
   Engineering", RFC 3784, June 2004.

   [OSPF-CAP] Lindem, A., Shen, N., Aggarwal, R., Shaffer, S., Vasseur,
   J.P., "Extensions to OSPF for advertising Optional Router
   Capabilities", draft-ietf-ospf-cap, work in progress.

   [IS-IS-CAP] Vasseur, J.P. et al., "IS-IS extensions for advertising
   router information", draft-ietf-isis-caps, work in progress.


Vasseur, Le Roux, et al.                                     [Page 12]

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-01.txt        June 2006




10.2. Informative References

   [RSVP-TE] Awduche, D., et. al., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
   tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.

   [RSVP-G] Berger, L, et. al., "GMPLS Signaling RSVP-TE extensions",
   RFC 3473, January 2003.

   [GMPLS-RTG] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "Routing Extensions in Support
   of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching", RFC4202, October
   2005.

   [OSPF-G] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "OSPF extensions in support of
   Generalized Multi-protocol Label Switching", RFC4203, October 2005.

   [IS-IS-G] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "IS-IS extensions in support of
   Generalized Multi-protocol Label Switching", RFC4205, October 2005.

   [P2MP-REQ] Yasukawa, S., et. al., "Signaling Requirements for Point
   to Multipoint Traffic Engineered MPLS LSPs", RFC4461, April 2006.

   [RSVP-P2MP] Aggarwal, Papadimitriou, Yasukawa, et. al. "Extensions to
   RSVP-TE for point-to-multipoint TE LSPs", draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-
   p2mp, work in progress.

   [LSP-ATTRIBUTE] Farrel, A., and al., "Encoding of attributes for MPLS
   LSPs establishment Using RSVP-TE", RFC4420, February 2006.


11. Editors Address

   Jean-Philippe Vasseur
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   1414 Massachusetts Avenue
   Boxborough , MA - 01719
   USA
   Email: jpv@cisco.com

   Jean-Louis Le Roux
   France Telecom
   2, avenue Pierre-Marzin
   22307 Lannion Cedex
   FRANCE
   Email: jeanlouis.leroux@francetelecom.com







Vasseur, Le Roux, et al.                                     [Page 13]

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-01.txt        June 2006


12. Contributors address

   Seisho Yasukawa
   NTT
   9-11, Midori-Cho 3-Chome
   Tokyo,   180-8585
   JAPAN
   Email: yasukawa.seisho@lab.ntt.co.jp

   Stefano Previdi
   Cisco Systems, Inc
   Via Del Serafico 200
   Roma,   00142
   Italy
   Email: sprevidi@cisco.com

   Peter Psenak
   Cisco Systems, Inc
   Pegasus Park DE Kleetlaan 6A
   Diegmen,   1831
   BELGIUM
   Email: ppsenak@cisco.com

   Paul Mabbey
   Comcast
   USA
   Email:


13. Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF 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
   this document or the extent to which any license 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.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR 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
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.

Vasseur, Le Roux, et al.                                     [Page 14]

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-01.txt        June 2006



   Disclaimer of Validity

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY 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 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

   Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).  This document is subject
   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.





































Vasseur, Le Roux, et al.                                     [Page 15]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/