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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 RFC 3472

Network Working Group        Peter Ashwood-Smith (Nortel Networks Corp.)
Internet Draft                          Ayan Banerjee (Calient Networks)
Expiration Date: May 2001                    Lou Berger (Movaz Networks)
                                      Greg Bernstein (Ciena Corporation)
                                           John Drake (Calient Networks)
                                           Yanhe Fan (Axiowave Networks)
                               Kireeti Kompella (Juniper Networks, Inc.)
                                                       Eric Mannie (GTS)
                                     Jonathan P. Lang (Calient Networks)
                                        Bala Rajagopalan (Tellium, Inc.)
                                           Yakov Rekhter (Cisco Systems)
                                           Debanjan Saha (Tellium, Inc.)
                                                 Vishal Sharma (Tellabs)
                                          George Swallow (Cisco Systems)
                                              Z. Bo Tang (Tellium, Inc.)

                                                           November 2000


             Generalized MPLS Signaling - CR-LDP Extensions


               draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-00.txt

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.  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 describes extensions to CR-LDP signaling required to
   support Generalized MPLS.  Generalized MPLS extends MPLS to encompass
   time-division (e.g. SONET ADMs), wavelength (optical lambdas) and
   spatial switching (e.g. incoming port or fiber to outgoing port or
   fiber).  This document presents a CR-LDP specific description of the
   extensions.  An RSVP-TE specific description can be found in [GMPLS-
   RSVP].  A generic functional description is presented in [GMPLS-SIG].




Berger, Ashwood-Smith, editors                                  [Page 1]

Internet Draft  draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-00.txt  November 2000


Contents

 1      Introduction  ..............................................   3
 2      Label Related Formats   ....................................   3
 2.1    Generalized Label Request  .................................   4
 2.1.1  Generalized Label Request with SONET/SDH Label Range  ......   4
 2.1.2  Procedures  ................................................   4
 2.1.3  Bandwidth Encoding  ........................................   5
 2.2    Generalized Label  .........................................   6
 2.2.1  Procedures  ................................................   6
 2.3    Waveband Switching  ........................................   6
 2.3.1  Procedures  ................................................   7
 2.4    Suggested Label  ...........................................   8
 2.5    Label Set  .................................................   8
 2.5.1  Procedures  ................................................   8
 3      Bidirectional LSPs  ........................................   9
 3.1    Procedures  ................................................  10
 4      Explicit Label Control  ....................................  10
 4.1    Procedures  ................................................  11
 5      Acknowledgments  ...........................................  12
 6      Security Considerations  ...................................  12
 7      References  ................................................  12
 8      Authors' Addresses  ........................................  13
















Berger, Ashwood-Smith, editors                                  [Page 2]

Internet Draft  draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-00.txt  November 2000


Changes from previous version:

o  Moved protocol specific details into two documents, one for RSVP-TE
   and one for CR-LDP.
o  Clarified Label Set
o  Minor text cleanup



1. Introduction

   Generalized MPLS extends MPLS from supporting packet (PSC) interfaces
   and switching to include support of three new classes of interfaces
   and switching: Time-Division Multiplex (TDM), Lambda Switch (LSC) and
   Fiber-Switch (FSC).  A functional description of the extensions to
   MPLS signaling needed to support the new classes of interfaces and
   switching is provided in [GMPLS-SIG].  This document presents CR-LDP
   specific formats and mechanisms needed to support all four classes of
   interfaces.  RSVP-TE extensions can be found in [GMPLS-RSVP].

   [GMPLS-SIG] should be viewed as a companion document to this
   document.  The format of this document parallels [GMPLS-SIG].  It
   should be noted that the RSVP-TE specific version of Generalized MPLS
   includes RSVP specific support for rapid failure notification, see
   Section 4 [GMPLS-RSVP].  For CR-LDP there is not currently a similar
   mechanism.  When a failure is detected it will be propagated with
   RELEASE/WITHDRAW messages radially outward from the point of failure.
   Resources are to be released in this phase and actual resource
   information is fed back to the source using the feedback mechanisms
   of [FEEDBACK].  In this manner the source will have an accurate view
   of available resources and can start rerouting much sooner.

   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].


2. Label Related Formats

   This section defines formats for a generalized label request, a
   generalized label, support for waveband switching, suggested label
   and label sets.









Berger, Ashwood-Smith, editors                                  [Page 3]

Internet Draft  draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-00.txt  November 2000


2.1. Generalized Label Request

   A REQUEST message SHOULD contain as specific an LSP Encoding Type as
   possible to allow the maximum flexibility in switching by transit
   LSRs.  A Generalized Label Request TLV is set by the ingress node,
   transparently passed by transit nodes, and used by the egress node.

   The format of a Generalized Label Request is:

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |U|F|          0x0901           |             Length            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | LSP Enc. Type |Link Prot.Flags|             G-PID             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      See [GMPLS-SIG] for a description of parameters.


2.1.1. Generalized Label Request with SONET/SDH Label Range

   The format of a Generalized Label Request with SONET/SDH label range
   (in CR-LDP) is:

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |U|F|          0x0902           |             Length            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | LSP Enc. Type |Link Prot.Flags|             G-PID             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  RGT  |   RT  |    Reserved   |              RNC              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      See [GMPLS-SIG] for a description of parameters.


2.1.2. Procedures

   A node processing the REQUEST message containing the Generalized
   Label Request must verify that the requested parameters can be
   satisfied by the incoming interface, the node and by the outgoing
   interface.  The node may either directly support the LSP or it may
   use a tunnel (FA), i.e., another class of switching.  In either case,
   each parameter must be checked.

   Note that local node policy dictates when tunnels may be used and



Berger, Ashwood-Smith, editors                                  [Page 4]

Internet Draft  draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-00.txt  November 2000


   when they may be created.  Local policy may allow for tunnels to be
   dynamically established or may be solely administratively controlled.
   For more information on tunnels and processing of ER hops when using
   tunnels see [MPLS-HIERARCHY].

   Transit and egress nodes MUST verify that the node itself and, where
   appropriate, that the outgoing interface or tunnel can support the
   requested LSP Encoding Type.  If encoding cannot be supported, the
   node MUST generate a NOTIFICATION message, with a "Routing
   problem/Unsupported Encoding" indication.

   Transit nodes MUST verify that the outgoing interface or tunnel can
   support the requested Link Protection Flags.  If it cannot, the node
   MUST generate a NOTIFICATION message, with a "Routing
   problem/Unsupported Link Protection" indication.

   The G-PID parameter is normally only examined at the egress.  If the
   indicated G-PID cannot be supported then the egress MUST generate a
   NOTIFICATION message, with a "Routing problem/Unsupported GPID"
   indication.  In the case of PSC and when penultimate hop popping
   (PHP) is requested, the penultimate hop also examines the (stored) G-
   PID during the processing of the MAPPING message.  In this case if
   the G-PID is not supported, then the penultimate hop MUST generate a
   NOTIFICATION message with a "Routing problem/Unacceptable label
   value" indication.

   When an error message is not generated, normal processing occurs.  In
   the transit case this will typically result in a REQUEST message
   being propagated.  In the egress case and PHP special case this will
   typically result in a MAPPING message being generated.


2.1.3. Bandwidth Encoding

   Bandwidth encodings are carried in the CR-LDP Traffic Parameters TLV.
   See [GMPLS-SIG] for a definition of values to be used for specific
   signal types.  These values are set in the Peak and Committed Data
   Rate fields of the Traffic Parameters TLV.  Other bandwidth/service
   related parameters in the TLV are ignored and carried transparently.












Berger, Ashwood-Smith, editors                                  [Page 5]

Internet Draft  draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-00.txt  November 2000


2.2. Generalized Label


   The format of a Generalized Label is:

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |U|F|          0x0902           |      Length                   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                             Label                             |
      |                              ...                              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      See [GMPLS-SIG] for a description of parameters and encoding of
      SDH, SONET, port, wavelength and other labels.


2.2.1. Procedures

   The Generalized Label travels in the upstream direction in MAPPING
   messages.

   The presence of both a generalized and normal label TLV in a MAPPING
   message is a protocol error and should treated as a malformed message
   by the recipient.


   The recipient of a MAPPING message containing a Generalized Label
   verifies that the values passed are acceptable.  If the label is
   unacceptable then the recipient MUST generate a NOTIFICATION message
   with a "Routing problem/MPLS label allocation failure" indication.


2.3. Waveband Switching

   Waveband switching uses the same format as the generalized label, see
   section 2.2.  The type (0x0903) is assigned for the Waveband Label.













Berger, Ashwood-Smith, editors                                  [Page 6]

Internet Draft  draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-00.txt  November 2000


   In the context of waveband switching, the generalized label has the
   following format:

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |U|F|          0x0903           |      Length                   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                          Waveband Id                          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                          Start Label                          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                           End Label                           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      See [GMPLS-SIG] for a description of parameters.


2.3.1. Procedures

   The procedures defined in Section 2.2.1 apply to waveband switching.
   This includes generating a NOTIFICATION message with a "Routing
   problem/MPLS label allocation failure" indication if any of the label
   fields are unrecognized or unacceptable.

   Additionally, when a waveband is switched to another waveband, it is
   possible that the wavelengths within the waveband will be mirrored
   about a center frequency.  When this type of switching is employed,
   the start and end label in the waveband label TLV MUST be flipped
   before forwarding the label TLV with the new waveband Id.  In this
   manner an egress/ingress LSR which receives a waveband label which
   has these values inverted, knows that it must also invert its egress
   association to pick up the proper wavelengths.  Without this
   mechanism and with an odd number of mirrored switching operations,
   the egress LSRs will not know that an input wavelength of say L1 will
   emerge from the waveband tunnel as L100.

   This operation MUST be performed in both directions when a
   bidirectional waveband tunnel is being established.












Berger, Ashwood-Smith, editors                                  [Page 7]

Internet Draft  draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-00.txt  November 2000


2.4. Suggested Label

   The format of a suggested label is identical to a generalized label.
   It is used in REQUEST messages.  Suggested Label uses type = 0x904.

   Errors in received Suggested Labels MUST be ignored.  This includes
   any received inconsistent or unacceptable values.


2.5. Label Set


   The format of a Label_Set is:

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |U|F|  type=0x0905              |      Length                   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |            Reserved           |  Label Type   |    Action     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                          Subchannel 1                         |
      |                              ...                              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      :                               :                               :
      :                               :                               :
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                          Subchannel N                         |
      |                              ...                              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Label Type: 8 bits

         Indicates the type and format of the labels carried in the TLV.
         Values match the TLV type of the appropriate Label TLV.

      See [GMPLS-SIG] for a description of other parameters.


2.5.1. Procedures

   A Label Set is defined via one or more Label_Set TLVs.  Specific
   labels/subchannels can be added to or excluded from a Label Set via
   Action zero (0) and one (1) TLVs respectively.  Ranges of
   labels/subchannels can be added to or excluded from a Label Set via
   Action two (2) and three (3) TLVs respectively.  When the Label_Set
   TLVs only list labels/subchannels to exclude, this implies that all
   other labels are acceptable.



Berger, Ashwood-Smith, editors                                  [Page 8]

Internet Draft  draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-00.txt  November 2000


   The absence of any Label_Set TLVs implies that all labels are
   acceptable.  A Label Set is included when a node wishes to restrict
   the label(s) that may be used downstream.

   On reception of a REQUEST message a CI-capable interface will
   restrict its choice of labels to one which is in the Label Set.  The
   CI-capable receiver may also remove the Label Set prior to forwarding
   the REQUEST message.  If the node is unable to pick a label from the
   Label Set or if there is a problem parsing the Label_Set TLVs, then
   the request is terminated and a NOTIFICATION message with a "Routing
   problem/Label Set" indication MUST be generated. It is a local matter
   if the Label Set is stored for later selection on the MAPPING or if
   the selection is made immediately for propagation in the MAPPING.

   On reception of a REQUEST message for a CI-incapable interface, the
   Label Set represented in the message is compared against the set of
   available labels at the downstream interface and the resulting
   intersecting Label Set is forwarded in a REQUEST message.  When the
   resulting Label Set is empty, the REQUEST must be terminated, and a
   NOTIFICATION message, and a "Routing problem/Label Set" indication
   MUST be generated. Note that intersection is based on the physical
   labels (actual wavelength/band values) which may have different
   logical values on different links, as a result it is the
   responsibility of the node to map these values so that they have a
   consistent physical meaning, or to drop the particular values from
   the set if no suitable logical label value exists.

   When processing a MAPPING message at an intermediate node, the label
   propagated upstream MUST fall within the Label Set.

   Note, on reception of a MAPPING message for an interface which is CI-
   incapable it has no other choice than to use the same physical label
   (wavelength/band) as received in the MAPPING. In this case, the use
   and propagation of a Label Set will significantly reduce the chances
   that this allocation will fail when CI-incapable nodes are traversed.


3. Bidirectional LSPs

   Bidirectional LSP setup is indicated by the presence of an Upstream
   Label in the REQUEST message.   An Upstream Label has the same format
   as the generalized label, see Section 2.2.  Upstream Label uses
   type=0x0906








Berger, Ashwood-Smith, editors                                  [Page 9]

Internet Draft  draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-00.txt  November 2000


3.1. Procedures

   The process of establishing a bidirectional LSP follows the
   establishment of a unidirectional LSP with some additions.  To
   support bidirectional LSPs an Upstream Label is added to the REQUEST
   message.  The Upstream Label MUST indicate a label that is valid for
   forwarding at the time the REQUEST message is sent.

   When a REQUEST message containing an Upstream Label is received, the
   receiver first verifies that the upstream label is acceptable.  If
   the label is not acceptable, the receiver MUST issue a NOTIFICATION
   message with a "Routing problem/Unacceptable label value" indication.

   An intermediate node must also allocate a label on the outgoing
   interface and establish internal data paths before filling in an
   outgoing Upstream Label and propagating the REQUEST message.  If an
   intermediate node is unable to allocate a label or internal
   resources, then it MUST issue a NOTIFICATION message with a "Routing
   problem/Label allocation failure" indication.

   Terminator nodes process REQUEST messages as usual, with the
   exception that the upstream label can immediately be used to
   transport data traffic associated with the LSP upstream towards the
   initiator.

   When a bidirectional LSP is removed, both upstream and downstream
   labels are invalidated and it is no longer valid to send data using
   the associated labels.


4. Explicit Label Control

   The Label ER-Hop is defined as follows:

      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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |0|0|          0x901            |      Length                   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |L|U|      Reserved             |   Label                       |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                       Label (continued)                       |
      |                              ...                              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      See [GMPLS-SIG] for a description of L, U and Label parameters.





Berger, Ashwood-Smith, editors                                 [Page 10]

Internet Draft  draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-00.txt  November 2000


      Length

         Specifies the length of the value field in bytes.


4.1. Procedures

   The Label ER-Hop follows a ER-Hop containing the IP address, or the
   interface identifier [MPLS-UNNUM], associated with the link on which
   it is to be used.  The preceding ER-Hop must be strict.  Up to two
   label ER-Hops may be present, one for the downstream label and one
   for the upstream label.  The following SHOULD result in "Bad
   EXPLICIT_ROUTE" errors:
     -  If the first label ER-Hop is not preceded by a ER-Hop
        containing an IP address, or a interface identifier
        [MPLS-UNNUM], associated with an output link.
     -  For a label ER-Hop to follow a ER-Hop that has the L-bit
        set
     -  On unidirectional LSP setup, for there to be a label ER-Hop
        with the U-bit set
     -  For there to be two label ER-Hops with the same U-bit values

   To support the label ER-Hop, a node must check to see if the ER-Hop
   following it's associate address/interface is a label ER-Hop.  If it
   is, one ER-Hop is examined for unidirectional LSPs and two ER-Hops
   for bidirectional LSPs.  If the U-bit of the ER-Hop being examined is
   clear (0), then value of the label is copied into a new Label_Set
   TLV.  This Label_Set TLV MUST be included on the corresponding
   outgoing MAPPING message.

   If the U-bit of the ER-Hop being examined is set (1), then value of
   the label is label to be used for upstream traffic associated with
   the bidirectional LSP.  If this label is not acceptable, a "Bad
   EXPLICIT_ROUTE" error SHOULD be generated.  If the label is
   acceptable, the label is copied into a new Upstream Label TLV.  This
   Upstream Label TLV MUST be included on the corresponding outgoing
   MAPPING message.

   After processing, the label ER-Hops are removed from the ER.

   Note an implication of the above procedures is that the label ER-Hop
   should never be the first ER-Hop in a newly received message.  If the
   label ER-Hop is the the first ER-Hop an a received ER, then it SHOULD
   be treated as a "Bad strict node" error.

   Procedures by which an LSR at the head-end of an LSP obtains the
   information needed to construct the Label ER-Hop are outside the
   scope of this document.



Berger, Ashwood-Smith, editors                                 [Page 11]

Internet Draft  draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-00.txt  November 2000


5. Acknowledgments

   This draft is the work of numerous authors and consists of a
   composition of a number of previous drafts in this area.  A list of
   the drafts from which material and ideas were incorporated follows:

   draft-saha-rsvp-optical-signaling-00.txt
   draft-lang-mpls-rsvp-oxc-00.txt
   draft-kompella-mpls-optical-00.txt
   draft-fan-mpls-lambda-signaling-00.txt

   Valuable comments and input were received from a number of people,
   notably Adrian Farrel.


6. Security Considerations

   This draft introduce no new security considerations to [CR-LDP].


7. References

[CR-LDP] Jamoussi et al., "Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP",
         draft-ietf-mpls-cr-ldp-04.txt, July, 2000.

[MPLS-HIERARCHY] Kompella, K., and Rekhter, Y., "LSP Hierarchy with
                 MPLS TE", Internet Draft,
                 draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-00.txt, July 2000.

[GMPLS-RSVP] Ashwood-Smith, P. et al, "Generalized MPLS Signaling -
             RSVP-TE Extensions", Internet Draft,
             draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-00.txt,
             November 2000.

[GMPLS-SIG] Ashwood-Smith, P. et al, "Generalized MPLS -
            Signaling Functional Description", Internet Draft,
            draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-01.txt,
            November 2000.

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

[FEEDBACK] P. Ashwood-Smith, B. Jamoussi, D. Fedyk, D. Skalecki,
           "Improving Topology Data Base Accuracy With LSP Feedback
           via CR-LDP", Internet Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-te-feed-00.txt.






Berger, Ashwood-Smith, editors                                 [Page 12]

Internet Draft  draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-00.txt  November 2000


8. Authors' Addresses

   Peter Ashwood-Smith
   Nortel Networks Corp.
   P.O. Box 3511 Station C,
   Ottawa, ON K1Y 4H7
   Canada
   Phone:  +1 613 763 4534
   Email:  petera@nortelnetworks.com

   Ayan Banerjee
   Calient Networks
   5853 Rue Ferrari
   San Jose, CA 95138
   Phone:  +1 408 972-3645
   Email:  abanerjee@calient.net

   Lou Berger
   Movaz Networks
   Phone:  +1 301 468 9228
   Email:  lberger@movaz.com

   Greg Bernstein
   Ciena Corporation
   10480 Ridgeview Court
   Cupertino, CA 94014
   Phone:  +1 408 366 4713
   Email:  greg@ciena.com

   John Drake
   Calient Networks
   5853 Rue Ferrari
   San Jose, CA 95138
   Phone:  +1 408 972 3720
   Email:  jdrake@calient.net

   Yanhe Fan
   Axiowave Networks, Inc.
   100 Nickerson Road
   Marlborough, MA 01752
   Phone:  +1 508 460 6969 Ext. 627
   Email:  yfan@axiowave.com









Berger, Ashwood-Smith, editors                                 [Page 13]

Internet Draft  draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-00.txt  November 2000


   Kireeti Kompella
   Juniper Networks, Inc.
   1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
   Sunnyvale, CA 94089
   Email:  kireeti@juniper.net

   Jonathan P. Lang
   Calient Networks
   25 Castilian
   Goleta, CA 93117
   Email:  jplang@calient.net

   Eric Mannie
   GTS
   Terhulpsesteenweg 6A
   1560 Hoeilaart - Belgium
   Phone:  +32 2 658 56 52
   Mobile: +32 496 58 56 52
   Fax:    +32 2 658 51 18
   Email:  eric.mannie@gts.com

   Bala Rajagopalan
   Tellium, Inc.
   2 Crescent Place
   P.O. Box 901
   Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901
   Phone:  +1 732 923 4237
   Fax:    +1 732 923 9804
   Email:  braja@tellium.com

   Yakov Rekhter
   cisco Systems
   Email:  yakov@cisco.com

   Debanjan Saha
   Tellium Optical Systems
   2 Crescent Place
   Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901
   Phone:  +1 732 923 4264
   Fax:    +1 732 923 9804
   Email:  dsaha@tellium.com










Berger, Ashwood-Smith, editors                                 [Page 14]

Internet Draft  draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-00.txt  November 2000


   Vishal Sharma
   Tellabs Research Center
   One Kendall Square
   Bldg. 100, Ste. 121
   Cambridge, MA 02139-1562
   Phone:  +1 617 577 8760
   Email:  Vishal.Sharma@tellabs.com

   George Swallow
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   250 Apollo Drive
   Chelmsford, MA 01824
   Voice:  +1 978 244 8143
   Email:  swallow@cisco.com

   Z. Bo Tang
   Tellium, Inc.
   2 Crescent Place
   P.O. Box 901
   Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901
   Phone:  +1 732 923 4231
   Fax:    +1 732 923 9804
   Email:  btang@tellium.com




























Berger, Ashwood-Smith, editors                                 [Page 15]
Generated on: Fri Nov 17 11:56:46 EST 2000


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