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

Versions: (draft-berger-mpls-gmpls-lsp-reroute) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 RFC 5710

Internet Draft                                         Lou Berger (LabN)
Updates: 3209                     Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel Lucent)
Category: Standards Track                            JP. Vasseur (Cisco)
Expiration Date: May 25, 2009

                                                       November 25, 2008

          PathErr Message Triggered MPLS and GMPLS LSP Reroute

                draft-ietf-mpls-gmpls-lsp-reroute-03.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/1id-abstracts.html

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 25, 2009.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

Abstract

   This document describes how Resource ReserVation Protocol (RSVP)
   PathErr Messages may be used to trigger rerouting of Multi-Protocol
   Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) point-to-point
   Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) without first
   removing LSP state or resources.  Such LSP rerouting may be desirable
   in a number of cases including, for example, soft-preemption and
   graceful shutdown.  This document describes the usage of existing
   Standards Track mechanisms to support LSP rerouting. In this case, it
   relies on mechanisms already defined as part of RSVP-TE and simply
   describes a sequence of actions to be executed. While existing
   protocol definition can be used to support reroute applications, this
   document also defines a new reroute-specific error code to allow for



Berger, et al                Standards Track                    [Page 1]

Internet-Draft  draft-ietf-mpls-gmpls-lsp-reroute-03.txt  November 25, 2008


   the future definition of reroute application-specific error values.


Table of Contents

 1      Introduction  ..............................................   3
 1.1    Conventions used in this document  .........................   4
 2      Reroute Requests  ..........................................   4
 2.1    Processing at Requesting Node  .............................   4
 2.1.1  Reroute Request Timeouts  ..................................   5
 2.2    Processing at Upstream Node  ...............................   6
 2.3    Processing at Ingress  .....................................   6
 3      Example Reroute Requests  ..................................   7
 3.1    Node Reroute Request  ......................................   7
 3.2    Interface Reroute Request  .................................   7
 3.3    Component Reroute Request  .................................   8
 3.4    Label Reroute Request  .....................................   9
 4      IANA Considerations  .......................................   9
 5      Security Considerations  ...................................  10
 6      References  ................................................  10
 6.1    Normative References  ......................................  10
 6.2    Informative References  ....................................  11
 7      Acknowledgments  ...........................................  12
 8      Author's Addresses  ........................................  12
 9      Full Copyright Statement  ..................................  12
10      Intellectual Property  .....................................  13




















Berger, et al                Standards Track                    [Page 2]

Internet-Draft  draft-ietf-mpls-gmpls-lsp-reroute-03.txt  November 25, 2008


1. Introduction

   Resource ReserVation Protocol (RSVP), see [RFC2205], has been
   extended to support the control of Traffic Engineering (TE) Label
   Switched Paths (LSPs) for both Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS)
   and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) in, respectively, [RFC3209] and
   [RFC3473].  In all cases, a PathErr message is used to report errors
   to nodes upstream of the error detecting node. As defined in
   [RFC2205], and left unmodified by [RFC3209], PathErr messages "do not
   change path state in the nodes through which they pass".
   Notwithstanding this definition, PathErr messages are most commonly
   used to report errors during LSP establishment, i.e. the RSVP-TE
   processing that occurs prior to the ingress receiving a Resv message.
   (See [PATHERR] for a broader discussion on PathErr message handling.)
   Support for such usage was enhanced via the introduction of the
   Path_State_Removed flag in [RFC3473], which enables a processing node
   to free related LSP state and resources.  The usage of PathErr
   messages during LSP establishment was further covered in [RFC4920]
   which describes in detail how a node may indicate that the node or
   one of its associated resources should be avoided, i.e., routed
   around, during LSP establishment.

   PathErr messages can also be used to support a number of other cases
   that can occur after an LSP is established.  This document focuses on
   the cases where PathErr messages can be used for a node to indicate
   that it desires an upstream node to reroute an LSP around the
   indicating node or a resources associated with the indicating node.
   Some examples of such cases are soft-preemption and graceful
   shutdown.  (See [PREEMPTION] and [GRACEFUL]).

   This document uses the terminology "reroute request" to refer to the
   indication by a node that an upstream reroute should take place. This
   document describes how a node can initiate a reroute request without
   disrupting LSP data traffic or, when so desired, with the disruption
   of data traffic and removal of LSP associated state and resources.
   The applicability of this document is limited to point-to-point LSPs.
   Support for point-to-multipoint LSPs are for further study.

   The mechanisms used to indicate reroute requests are derived from the
   mechanisms described in [RFC4920], and the error codes defined in
   [RFC4736].  This document describes (1) how a non-disruptive reroute
   request may be issued and, (2) based on an optional "timeout" period,
   how rerouting may be forced by removing LSP state and associated
   resources and signaling such removal.  While this document describes
   how existing protocol definitions can be used to support rerouting,
   it also defines a new reroute-specific error code to allow for the
   future definition of reroute application-specific error values.




Berger, et al                Standards Track                    [Page 3]

Internet-Draft  draft-ietf-mpls-gmpls-lsp-reroute-03.txt  November 25, 2008


1.1. Conventions used in this document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].


2. Reroute Requests

   This section describes how a downstream node can indicate that it
   desires a node upstream (along the LSP path) to initiate the re-
   routing of an LSP, and how the upstream nodes can respond to such a
   request.  Initiating nodes, transit nodes, and ingress nodes are
   described separately.


2.1. Processing at Requesting Node

   When a transit or egress node desires to request the rerouting of an
   established LSP, it first determines if it can act on the reroute
   request locally. Such a check MUST be performed on the condition that
   the ERO received in the LSP's incoming Path message does not preclude
   LSP re-routing.  Examples of events that may trigger reroutes are
   avoiding an outgoing interface, a component, label resource, or a
   next hop not explicitly listed in the ERO. In all cases, the actual
   repair action SHOULD be performed after verification that the local
   policy allows local repair for that LSP/state.  That is, any traffic
   re-routing action (associated to this state) must be initiated and
   completed only as allowed by local node policy.

   When the node cannot act locally, it MUST issue a PathErr message
   indicating its inability to perform local rerouting.  The PathErr
   message MUST contain an ERROR_SPEC object of the format defined in
   [RFC2205] or [RFC3473].  Such a message MUST include one of the
   following combinations of error codes and error values:

      1. "Notify/Local node maintenance required" to support backwards
         compatibility and to reroute around the local node.

      2. "Notify/Local link maintenance required" to support backwards
         compatibility and to reroute around a local interface.

      3. "Reroute/<any Reroute error value>" for future compatibility
         and when backwards compatibility is not a concern.

   The rest of the ERROR_SPEC object is constructed based on the local
   rerouting decision and the resource that is to be avoided by an
   upstream node.  It is important to note that the address and TLVs



Berger, et al                Standards Track                    [Page 4]

Internet-Draft  draft-ietf-mpls-gmpls-lsp-reroute-03.txt  November 25, 2008


   carried by the ERROR_SPEC object identify the resource to be avoided
   and not the error code and value.

   When the reroute decision redirects traffic around the local node,
   the local node MUST be indicated in the ERROR_SPEC object. Otherwise,
   i.e., when the reroute decision does not redirect traffic around the
   local node, the impacted interface MUST be indicated in the
   ERROR_SPEC object and the IF_IF [RFC3473] ERROR_SPEC object formats
   SHOULD be used to indicate the impacted interface.

   The IF_ID [RFC3473] ERROR_SPEC object format MUST be used to indicate
   a reroute request that is more specific than an interface.  The TLVs
   defined in [RFC3471], as updated by [RFC3477] and [RFC4201], and
   [RFC4920] MAY be used to provide specific additional reroute request
   information, e.g., reroute around a specific label.  The principles
   related to ERROR_SPEC object construction defined in section 6.3.1.
   of [RFC4920] SHOULD be followed.


2.1.1. Reroute Request Timeouts

   Reroute request timeouts are used to remove an LSP when there is no
   response to a reroute request.  A reroute request timeout is used
   when an LSP is to be removed at the expiration of the Reroute request
   timeout period.  When such LSP removal is desired and after
   initiating a reroute request, the initiating node MUST initiate a
   timeout during which it expects to receive a response to the reroute
   request.  Valid responses are a PathTear message or a trigger Path
   message with an ERO avoiding the resource that was indicated in the
   reroute request.  If either type of message is received, the timeout
   period MUST be canceled and no further action is needed.  Note,
   normal refresh processing is not modified by the introduction of
   reroute request timeouts.  Such processing may result in Path state
   being removed during the timeout period, in which case the timeout
   period MUST also be canceled.

   If the reroute request timeout is reached, the initiating node MUST
   remove the LSP and its associated state and resources.  Removal of
   LSP state is indicated downstream via a corresponding PathTear
   message.  Removal is indicated upstream via a PathErr message with
   the error code of "Service preempted".  The Path_State_Removed flag
   MUST be set if supported.  When the Path_State_Removed flag is not
   supported, a corresponding ResvTear MUST also be sent.








Berger, et al                Standards Track                    [Page 5]

Internet-Draft  draft-ietf-mpls-gmpls-lsp-reroute-03.txt  November 25, 2008


2.2. Processing at Upstream Node

   When a transit node's policy permits it to support reroute request
   processing and local repair, the node MUST examine incoming PathErr
   messages to see it the node can perform a requested reroute.  A
   reroute request is indicated in a received PathErr message which
   carries one of the error code and value combinations listed above in
   Section 2.1.  Note that a conformant implementation MUST check for
   any of the the three combinations listed in Section 2.1.

   A transit node MAY act on a reroute request locally when the ERO
   received in the LSP's incoming Path message does not precluded the
   reroute.  As before, examples include loosely routed LSP next hops.
   When the reroute request can be processed locally, standard local
   repair processing MUST be followed.  The node SHOULD limit the number
   of local repair attempts.  Again, the expected norm is for local
   repair and, thereby, this case to be precluded due to policy.

   When the transit node supports [RFC4920], is a boundary node and
   Boundary Re-routing is allowed, it SHOULD use a route request as a
   trigger to reroute the LSP.  (Per [RFC4920], the Flags field of the
   LSP_ATTRIBUTES object of the initial Path message indicate "Boundary
   re-routing".)  In the case the node triggers rerouting, it first MUST
   identify an alternate path within the domain.  When such a path is
   available, the node MUST terminate the PathErr message and issue a
   Path message reflecting the identified alternate path.  Processing
   then continues per [RFC4920].  When an alternate path is note
   available, the node cannot act on the reroute request.

   When a transit node node cannot act on a reroute request locally, per
   standard processing, it MUST propagate the received PathErr message
   to the previous hop.


2.3. Processing at Ingress

   When reroute processing is supported, an ingress node MUST check
   received PathErr messages to identify them as indicating reroute
   requests.  A reroute request is indicated in a received PathErr
   message which carries one of the error code and value combinations
   listed above in Section 2.1.  Note that a conformant implementation
   MUST check for any of the the three combinations listed in Section
   2.1.

   Upon receiving a reroute request, the ingress MUST attempt to
   identify an alternate path, avoiding the node, interface, resource,
   etc. identified within the ERROR_SPEC object.  When an alternate path
   cannot be identified the reroute request MUST be discarded.   When an



Berger, et al                Standards Track                    [Page 6]

Internet-Draft  draft-ietf-mpls-gmpls-lsp-reroute-03.txt  November 25, 2008


   alternate path is identified, a corresponding make-before-break LSP
   SHOULD be initiated, and standard make-before-break procedures MUST
   be followed.


3. Example Reroute Requests

   This section provides example reroute requests. This section is
   informative rather than prescriptive. Reroute requests are always
   sent via PathErr messages.  As described above, a PathErr message may
   contain either an [RFC2205] format ERROR_SPEC object, or an IF_ID
   [RFC3473] format ERROR_SPEC object and it is the address and TLVs
   carried by the ERROR_SPEC object and not the error value that
   indicates the resource that is to be avoided by the reroute.


3.1. Node Reroute Request

   To indicate that the node should be avoided by an upstream node, the
   node originating the reroute may format the ERROR_SPEC per [RFC2205],
   for example:

      o    IPv4 ERROR_SPEC object: Class = 6, C-Type = 1

      +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
      |            IPv4 Error Node Address (4 bytes)          |
      +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
      |    Flags    |  Error Code |        Error Value        |
      +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

   The node address is set to the local node's TE router address.  Error
   code is set to either "Notify/Local node maintenance required" or
   "Reroute/<any Reroute error value>".


3.2. Interface Reroute Request

   To indicate that a numbered interface should be avoided by an
   upstream node, the node originating the reroute may format the
   ERROR_SPEC per [RFC3473], for example:











Berger, et al                Standards Track                    [Page 7]

Internet-Draft  draft-ietf-mpls-gmpls-lsp-reroute-03.txt  November 25, 2008


       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |            Length             | Class-Num (6) | C-Type (3)    |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                     IPv4 Error Node Address                   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |     Flags     |   Error Code  |          Error Value          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |              Type (1)         |             Length (8)        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                            IP Address                         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The node address is set to the local node's TE router address.  Error
   code is set to either "Notify/Local link maintenance required" or
   "Reroute/<any Reroute error value>". IP address is set to the TE
   address of the interface to be avoided.


3.3. Component Reroute Request

   To indicate that an unnumbered component should be avoided by an
   upstream node, the node originating the reroute formats the
   ERROR_SPEC per [RFC4201], for example:

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |            Length             | Class-Num (6) | C-Type (3)    |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                     IPv4 Error Node Address                   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |     Flags     |   Error Code  |          Error Value          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |              Type (3)         |             Length (12)       |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                           Router ID                           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                     Interface ID (32 bits)                    |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   The node address is set to the local TE address used in the
   advertisement of the bundle associated with the component.  Error
   code is set to either "Notify/Local link maintenance required" or
   "Reroute/<any Reroute error value>". Router ID is set to the local
   router ID and Interface ID is the identifier assigned to the



Berger, et al                Standards Track                    [Page 8]

Internet-Draft  draft-ietf-mpls-gmpls-lsp-reroute-03.txt  November 25, 2008


   component link by the local node.


3.4. Label Reroute Request

   To indicate that a label should be avoided by an upstream node, the
   node originating the reroute may format the ERROR_SPEC per [RFC4920],
   for example:

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |            Length             | Class-Num (6) | C-Type (3)    |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                     IPv4 Error Node Address                   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |     Flags     |   Error Code  |          Error Value          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |              Type (1)         |             Length (8)        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                            IP Address                         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |              Type (6)         |             Length (8)        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                         DOWNSTREAM_LABEL                      |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The node address is set to the local node's TE router address.  Error
   code is set to either "Notify/Local link maintenance required" or
   "Reroute/<any Reroute error value>". IP address is set to the TE
   address of the interface which supports the label to be avoided.
   DOWNSTREAM_LABEL indicates the label to be avoided.


4. IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to administer assignment of new values for
   namespaces defined in this document and reviewed in this section.

   Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the assignment in
   the "Error Codes and Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes" section
   of the "RSVP Parameters" registry located at
   http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters:








Berger, et al                Standards Track                    [Page 9]

Internet-Draft  draft-ietf-mpls-gmpls-lsp-reroute-03.txt  November 25, 2008


      34*  Reroute                                   [This document]

      This Error Code has the following defined Error Value sub-code:

         0 = Generic LSP reroute request

      Reroute error values should be allocated based on the following
      allocation policy as defined in [RFC5226].

      Range         Registration Procedures
      --------      ------------------------
      0-32767       IETF Consensus
      32768-65535   Private Use

      (*) Suggested value.


5. Security Considerations

   This document introduces no new security considerations as this
   document describes usage of existing formats and mechanisms.  This
   document does introduce a new error code value, but this value is
   functionally equivalent to existing semantics.  The Section 9 of
   [RFC4920] and [RFC4736] should be used as the starting point for
   reviewing the security considerations related to the formats and
   mechanisms discussed in this document.


6. References

6.1. Normative References

   [RFC2205] Braden, R., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S. and S. Jamin,
             "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1,
             Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.

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

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

   [RFC3471] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
             Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description",
             RFC 3471, January 2003.





Berger, et al                Standards Track                   [Page 10]

Internet-Draft  draft-ietf-mpls-gmpls-lsp-reroute-03.txt  November 25, 2008


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

   [RFC3477] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "Signalling Unnumbered Links
             in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering
             (RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, January 2003.

   [RFC4201] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., Berger, L., "Link Bundling in
             MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4201, October 2005.

   [RFC4920] Farrel, A., Ed., "Crankback Signaling Extensions for
             MPLS and GMPLS RSVP-TE", RFC 4920, July 2007.

   [RFC5226] Narten, T., Alvestrand, H., "Guidelines for Writing an
             IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
             May 2008.


6.2. Informative References

   [RFC4736] Vasseur, JP., et al, "Reoptimization of Multiprotocol
             Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Loosely
             Routed Label Switched Path (LSP)", RFC 4736, November
             2006.

   [GRACEFUL] Ali, Z., et al., "Graceful Shutdown in MPLS and
              Generalized MPLS Traffic Engineering Networks",
              draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown-08.txt,
              Work in Progress, October 2008

   [PATHERR] Vasseur, JP., Ed. "Node behavior upon originating and
             receiving Resource ReserVation Protocol (RSVP) Path
             Error message", draft-ietf-mpls-3209-patherr-03.txt,
             Work in Progress, August 2008.

   [PREEMPTION] Meyer, M., Ed. "MPLS Traffic Engineering Soft
                Preemption", draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption-14.txt,
                Work in Progress, November 2008.











Berger, et al                Standards Track                   [Page 11]

Internet-Draft  draft-ietf-mpls-gmpls-lsp-reroute-03.txt  November 25, 2008


7. Acknowledgments

   This document was conceived along with Matthew Meyer.  George Swallow
   provided valuable feedback.


8. Author's Addresses

   Lou Berger
   LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
   Phone: +1-301-468-9228
   Email: lberger@labn.net

   Dimitri Papadimitriou
   Alcatel Lucent
   Francis Wellesplein 1,
   B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
   Phone: +32 3 240-8491
   Email: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel-lucent.be

   JP Vasseur
   Cisco Systems, Inc
   11, Rue Camille Desmoulins
   L'Atlantis
   92782 Issy Les Moulineaux
   France
   Email: jpv@cisco.com


9. Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   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.

   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, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.







Berger, et al                Standards Track                   [Page 12]

Internet-Draft  draft-ietf-mpls-gmpls-lsp-reroute-03.txt  November 25, 2008


10. Intellectual Property

   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.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).























Berger, et al                Standards Track                   [Page 13]
Generated on: Tue Nov 25 09:47:22 EST 2008


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