[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: April 2007                                                  NTT
                                                              S. Previdi
                                                               P. Psenak
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                              Paul Mabey
                                                                 Comcast





                                                            October 2006


   IGP Routing Protocol Extensions for Discovery of Traffic Engineering
                            Node Capabilities

                  draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-02.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-02.txt     October 2006



Abstract

   It is highly desired in several cases, to take into account Traffic
   Engineering (TE) node capabilities during Multi Protocol Label
   Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineered Label Switched Path (TE-LSP)
   selection, such as for instance the capability to act as a branch
   Label Switching Router (LSR) of a Point-To-MultiPoint (P2MP) LSP.
   This requires advertising these capabilities within the Interior
   Gateway Protocol (IGP). For that purpose, this document specifies
   Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) and Intermediate System-Intermediate
   System (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......................................7
   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....................................11
   8.      IANA considerations........................................11
   8.1.    OSPF TLVs..................................................11
   8.2.    ISIS TLVs..................................................11
   8.3.    Capability Registries......................................12
   8.3.1.  Data Plane Capabilities Registry...........................12
   8.3.2.  Control Plane Capabilities Registry........................12
   9.      Acknowledgments............................................13
   10.     References.................................................13
   10.1.   Normative references.......................................13
   10.2.   Informative References.....................................14
   11.     Editors' Addresses.........................................14
   12.     Contributors' Addresses....................................14

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

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-02.txt     October 2006


   13.     Intellectual Property Statement............................15


1. Terminology

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

2. Introduction

   Multi Protocol Label Switching-Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) routing
   ([RFC3784], [RFC3630], [OSPFv3-TE]) relies on extensions to link
   state Interior Gateway Protocols (IGP) ([IS-IS], [RFC2328],
   [RFC2740]) in order to advertise Traffic Engineering (TE) link
   information used for constraint based routing. Further Generalized
   MPLS (GMPLS) related routing extensions are defined in [RFC4205] and
   [RFC4203].

   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 the capability for a Label Switching Router (LSR) to be a
   branch LSR or a bud-LSR of a Point-To-MultiPoint (P2MP) Label
   Switched Path (LSP). These capabilities can then be taken into
   account as constraints when computing the route of TE LSPs.

   It is also useful to advertise control plane TE node capabilities
   such as 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-02.txt     October 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 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 procedures
   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])).

3.2. Required Information

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

   Two Data Plane Capabilities are defined in this document:
        - B bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR can act
                 as a branch node on a P2MP LSP (see [RFC4461]);
        - 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 [RFC4461]).

   Three Control Plane Capabilities are defined in this document:
        - M bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR supports
                 MPLS-TE signaling ([RFC3209]);
        - G bit: when set this flag indicates that the LSR supports
                 GMPLS signaling ([RFC3473]);
        - 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-02.txt     October 2006


4. TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV formats

4.1. OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV format

   The OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV contains a non ordered set
   of 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 [RFC3630]. That is, the TLV is composed of 2
   octets for the type, 2 octets specifying the length of the value
   field and a value field.  The TLV is zero padded to four-octet
   alignment; padding is not included in the length field value (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
         LENGTH   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 variable length TLV that contains a
   series of bit flags, where each bit correspond to a data plane TE
   node capability.

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

         TYPE     To be assigned by IANA (suggested value =1).
         LENGTH   Variable (multiple of 4).
         VALUE    Array of units of 32 flags numbered from the most
                  significant bit as bit zero, where each bit represents
                  a data plane TE node capability.


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

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-02.txt     October 2006


   The following bits are defined:

     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
             [RFC4461].
      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 [RFC4461].

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

     2-31    Reserved for future assignments by IANA.

   Unassigned bits are considered as reserved and MUST be set to zero on
   transmission by the advertising LSR.

4.1.2. The CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV

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

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


         TYPE     To be assigned by IANA (suggested value = 2).
         LENGTH   Variable (multiple of 4).
         VALUE    Array of units of 32 flags numbered from the most
                  significant bit as bit zero, where each bit represents
                  a control plane TE node capability.

   The following bits are defined:

       Bit          Capabilities

        0          M bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports
                   MPLS-TE signaling ([RFC3209]).

        1          G bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports
                   GMPLS signaling ([RFC3473]).

        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.
   Unassigned bits are considered as reserved and MUST be set to zero on
   transmission by the advertising LSR.


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

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-02.txt     October 2006


4.2. IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV format

   The IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV contains a non ordered
   set of 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 [RFC3784]. 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].


4.2.1. DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV

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

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

      TYPE:   To be assigned by IANA (Suggested value =1)
      LENGTH: Variable
      VALUE:  Array of units of 8 flags numbered from the most
              significant bit as bit zero, where each bit represents
              a data plane TE node capability.

   The following bits are defined:

     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
             [RFC4461].
      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 [RFC4461].

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

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-02.txt     October 2006



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

     2-7    Reserved for future assignments by IANA.

   Unassigned bits are considered as reserved and MUST be set to zero on
   transmission by the advertising LSR.


4.2.2. CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV

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

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

      TYPE:   To be assigned by IANA (suggested value = 2).
      LENGTH: Variable.
      VALUE:  Array of units of 8 flags numbered from the most
              significant bit as bit zero, where each bit represents
              a control plane TE node capability.

   The following bits are defined:

       Bit          Capabilities

        0         M bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports
                   MPLS-TE signaling ([RFC3209]).

        1          G bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports
                   GMPLS signaling ([RFC3473]).

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

       3-7        Reserved for future assignments by IANA

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

   Unassigned bits are considered as reserved and MUST be set to zero on
   transmission by the advertising LSR.











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

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-02.txt     October 2006



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 an 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 [RFC2328], [RFC2740], and [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 [RFC2740]).

   A router MUST originate a new OSPF router information LSA whenever
   the content 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 appear at
   most once in an OSPF Router Information LSA. If a TE Node Capability
   Descriptor TLV appears more than once in an OSPF Router Information
   LSA, only the first occurrence MUST be processed, other occurrences
   MUST be discarded.

   The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV MUST contain at least one sub-
   TLV. An empty TE Node Capability Descriptor MUST be discarded.

   When an OSPF LSA 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.
   They may change as the result of configuration change, or software
   upgrade. This is expected not to appear more than once a day.












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

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-02.txt     October 2006


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 appear at
   most once in an ISIS Router Capability TLV. If a TE Node Capability
   Descriptor TLV appears more than once in an ISIS Capability TLV, only
   the first occurrence MUST be processed, other occurrences MUST be
   discarded.

   The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV MUST contain at least one sub-
   TLV. An empty TE Node Capability Descriptor MUST be discarded.

   When an 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.
   They may change as the result of configuration change, or software
   upgrade. This is expected not to appear more than once a day.


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].

   When the TE Node capability Descriptor TLV is absent, this means that
   the TE Capabilities of that LSR are unknown.

   When the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is present, but a sub-TLV
   is absent, this means that capabilities in that sub-TLV are unknown.

   The absence of a word of capability flags in OSPF or an octet of
   capability flags in IS-IS means that these capabilities are unknown.

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

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-02.txt     October 2006



   An unknown sub-TLV carried within the TE Node Capability Descriptor
   MUST be silently ignored.


7. Security Considerations

   This document specifies the content of the TE Node Capability
   Descriptor TLV in ISIS and OSPF, to be used for (G)MPLS-TE path
   computation. As this TLV is not used for SPF computation or normal
   routing, the extensions specified here have no direct effect on IP
   routing. Tampering with this TLV may have an effect on Traffic
   Engineering computation. Mechanisms defined to secure ISIS Link State
   PDUs [ISIS-HMAC], OSPF LSAs [OSPF-SIG], and their TLVs, can be used
   to secure this TLV as well.

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].
   IANA will assign a new codepoint for the TE Node Capability
   Descriptor TLV defined in this document and carried within the Router
   Information LSA (suggested value = 1).

   IANA will be in charge of the assignment of sub-TLV code points for
   the OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV defined in this document.
   New TLV type values may be allocated only by an IETF Consensus
   action.

   Two sub-TLVs types are defined for this TLV and must be assigned by
   IANA:
        -DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV (suggested value =1)
        -CONTROL-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 (suggested value = 1).

   IANA will be in charge of the assignment of sub-TLV code points for
   the ISIS TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV defined in this document.
   New TLV type values may be allocated only by an IETF Consensus
   action.





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

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-02.txt     October 2006


   Two sub-TLVs types are defined for this TLV and must be assigned by
   IANA:
        -DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV (suggested value =1)
        -CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV (suggested value =2)

   Note that ISIS and OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLVs types
   must be aligned.

8.3. Capability Registries

8.3.1. Data Plane Capabilities Registry

   IANA is requested to manage the space of data plane capability bit
   flags carried within the OSPF and ISIS DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLVs,
   numbering them in the usual IETF notation starting at zero, with the
   most significant bit as bit zero. A single registry must be defined
   for both protocols.
   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

   Two data plane capabilities are defined in this document and must be
   assigned by IANA. Here are the suggested values:
      1 : B Bit = P2MP Branch LSR capability
      2 : E bit = P2MP Bud LSR capability


8.3.2. Control Plane Capabilities Registry

   IANA is requested to manage the space of control plane capability bit
   flags carried within the OSPF and ISIS CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLVs,
   numbering them in the usual IETF notation starting at zero, with the
   most significant bit as bit zero. A single registry must be defined
   for both protocols.
   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

   Three control plane capabilities are defined in this document and
   must be assigned by IANA. Here are the suggested values:
      1 : M bit = MPLS-TE support ([RFC3209])
      2 : G bit = GMPLS support (RFC3473))
      3 : P bit = P2MP RSVP-TE support ([RSVP-P2MP])






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

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-02.txt     October 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

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

   [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998.

   [RFC2740] 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.

   [RFC3630] Katz, D., Yeung, D., Kompella, K., "Traffic Engineering
   Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September 2003.

   [RFC3784] 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.

   [RFC3567] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "Intermediate System to
   Intermediate System (IS-IS) Cryptographic Authentication", RFC 3567,
   July 2003.

   [RFC2154] Murphy, S., Badger, M., and B. Wellington, "OSPF with
   Digital Signatures", RFC 2154, June 1997.

   [RFC3209] Awduche, D., et. al., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
   tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.



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

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-02.txt     October 2006


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

   [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.

10.2. Informative References

   [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.

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

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


11. Editors' Addresses

   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@orange-ft.com

12. Contributors' Addresses

   Seisho Yasukawa
   NTT
   3-9-11 Midori-cho,
   Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180-8585, Japan
   Email: s.yasukawa@hco.ntt.co.jp

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

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

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-02.txt     October 2006



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

   Paul Mabbey
   Comcast
   USA


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.

   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 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/