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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05

Network Working Group                                        Fatai Zhang
Internet Draft                                                    Dan Li
Category: Standards Track                                         Huawei
                                                 F. Javier Jimenez Chico
                                                     O. Gonzalez de Dios
                                   Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo
                                                          C. Margaria. C
                                                  Nokia Siemens Networks
Expires: January 11, 2012                                  July 11, 2011


                   GMPLS-based Hierarchy LSP creation
                in Multi-Region and Multi-Layer Networks

                 draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-04.txt


Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with
   the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 11, 2012.



Abstract

   This specification describes the hierarchy LSP creation models in the
   Multi-Region and Multi-Layer Networks (MRN/MLN), and provides the
   extensions to the existing protocol mechanisms described in [RFC4206],
   [RFC6107] and [RFC6001] to create the hierarchy LSP through multiple
   layer networks.



Zhang                   Expires January 2012                   [Page 1]

draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-04.txt                      July 2011




Conventions used in this document

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

Table of Contents


   1. Introduction .................................................. 2
   2. Terminology ................................................... 3
   3. Provisioning of FA-LSP in Server Layer Network ................ 3
      3.1. Selection of Switching Layers ............................ 3
      3.2. Selection of Switching Granularity Levels ................ 4
      3.3. Selection of Adaptation Capabilities ..................... 6
   4. Signaling Extension Requirements for Server Layer Selection ... 7
      4.1. Model 1: Pre-provisioning of FA-LSP ...................... 8
      4.2. Model 2: Signaling trigger server layer path computation . 9
      4.3. Model 3: Full path computation at source node ............ 9
   5. ERO Sub-Object ............................................... 10
      5.1. Application of SERVER_LAYER_INFO sub-object ............. 11
   6. Security Considerations ...................................... 12
   7. IANA Considerations .......................................... 12
   8. Acknowledgments .............................................. 12
   9. References ................................................... 12
   10. Authors' Addresses .......................................... 14

1. Introduction

   Networks may comprise multiple layers which have different switching
   technologies or different switching granularity levels. The GMPLS
   technology is required to support control of such network.

   [RFC5212] defines the concept of MRN/MLN and describes the framework
   and requirements of GMPLS controlled MRN/MLN. The GMPLS extension for
   MRN/MLN, including routing aspect and signaling aspect, is described
   in [RFC6001].

   [RFC4206] and [RFC6107] describe how to set up a hierarchy LSP
   passing through multi-layer network and how to advertise the
   forwarding adjacency LSP (FA-LSP) created in the server layer network
   as a TE link via GMPLS signaling and routing protocols.

   Based on these existing standards, this document further describes
   the provisioning of FA-LSP when the region nodes support multiple


Zhang                   Expires January 2012                   [Page 2]

draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-04.txt                      July 2011


   interface switching capabilities and/or multiple switching
   granularities and/or adaptation functions, and then provides the
   extensions to the RSVP-TE protocol in order to set up hierarchy LSP
   according to the modes of hierarchy LSP provisioning.


2. Terminology

   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].


3. Provisioning of FA-LSP in Server Layer Network

3.1. Selection of Switching Layers

   As described in [RFC5212], the edge node of a region always has
   multiple Interface Switching Capabilities (ISCs), i.e., it contains
   multiple matrices which may be connected to each other by internal
   links. Nodes with multiple Interface Switching Capabilities are
   further classified as "simplex" or "hybrid" nodes by [RFC5212] and
   [RFC5339], where the simplex node advertises several TE links each
   with a single ISC value carried in its ISCD sub-TLV, while the hybrid
   node advertises a single TE link containing more than one ISCD each
   with a different ISC value. An example hybrid node with a link having
   multiple ISCs is shown in Figure 1, copied from [RFC5339].

                                  Network element
                           .............................
                           :            --------       :
                           :           |  PSC   |      :
                           :           |        |      :
                           :         --|#a      |      :
                           :        |  |   #b   |      :
                           :        |   --------       :
                           :        |       |          :
                           :        |  ----------      :
                           :    /|  | |    #c    |     :
                           :   | |--  |          |     :
                 Link1 ========| |    |    TDM   |     :
                           :   | |----|#d        |     :
                           :    \|     ----------      :
                           :............................

              Figure 1 - Hybrid node (Copied from [RFC5339])



Zhang                   Expires January 2012                   [Page 3]

draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-04.txt                      July 2011


   It's possible that the edge node of a region is a hybrid node which
   has multiple ISCs in the server layer. In this case, selection of
   which server layer to create the FA-LSP is necessary.

   Figure 2 shows an example multi-layer network, where node B and C are
   region edge nodes having three switching matrices which support, for
   instance, PSC, TDM and WDM switching, respectively. The three
   switching matrices are connected to each other by the internal links.
   Both the link between B and E and the link between E and C support
   TDM and WDM switching capabilities.

   +-------+  +------------+                   +------------+  +-------+
   | +---+ |  |   +---+    |        FA         |    +---+   |  | +---+ |
   | |PSC+-+--+---+PSC|....|...................|....|PSC+---+--+-+PSC| |
   | +---+ |  | +-+-+-+    |                   |    +-+-+-+ |  | +---+ |
   +-------+  | |   |      |                   |      |   | |  +-------+
    Node A    | |   |      |  +-------------+  |      |   | |   Node D
              | | +-+-+    |  |    +---+    |  |    +-+-+ | |
              | | |TDM|+   |  |   +|TDM|+   |  |   +|TDM| | |
              | | +-+-+|   |  |   |+-+-+|   |  |   |+-+-+ | |
              | |   |  ||\ |  | /||  |  ||\ |  | /||  |   | |
              | |   |  +| ||  || |+  |  +| ||  || |+  |   | |
              | +-+-+-+ | |====| | +-+-+ | |====| | +-+-+-+ |
              |   |WDM|-| ||  || |-|WDM|-| ||  || |-|WDM|   |
              |   +---+ |/ |  | \| +---+ |/ |  | \| +---+   |
              +------------+  +-------------+  +------------+
                Node B            Node E            Node C

              Figure 2 - MLN with multiple ISCs at edge node

   As can be seen in Figure 2, there are two choices when providing FA
   in the PSC layer network between node B and C: one is creating FA-LSP
   with TDM switching matrix through node B, E and C, the other is
   creating FA-LSP with WDM switching matrix through node B, E and C.

   [RFC6001] introduces a new SC (Switching Capability) sub-object into
   the XRO (ref. to [RFC4874]), which is used to indicate which
   switching capability is not expected to be used. When one of the
   switching capabilities is selected, the SC sub-object can be included
   in the message to exclude all other SCs.

3.2. Selection of Switching Granularity Levels

   Even in the case that the edge node only has one switching capability
   in the server layer, there may be still multiple choices for the
   server layer network to set up FA-LSP to provide new FA in the client
   layer network. This is because the server layer network may have the


Zhang                   Expires January 2012                   [Page 4]

draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-04.txt                      July 2011


   capability of providing different switching granularity levels for
   the FA-LSP.



   +-------+   +---------+                       +---------+   +-------+
   | +---+ |   |  +---+  |           FA          |  +---+  |   | +---+ |
   | |PSC|-+---+--+PSC|..|.......................|..|PSC+--+---+-|PSC| |
   | +---+ |   |  +-+-+  |                       |  +-+-+  |   | +---+ |
   +-------+   |    |    | ODU1/           ODU1/ |    |    |   +-------+
    Node A     |    |    | ODU2/ +-------+ ODU2/ |    |    |    Node D
               |  +-+-+  | ODU3  | +---+ | ODU3  |  +-+-+  |
               |  |TDM+--+-------+-+TDM+-+-------+--+TDM|  |
               |  +---+  |       | +---+ |       |  +---+  |
               +---------+       +-------+       +---------+
                 Node B           Node E           Node C

        Figure 3a - Multiple switching granularities in server layer

   Figure 3a shows an example multi-region network, where the edge node
   B and C have PSC and TDM switching matrices, and where the TDM
   switching matrix supports ODU1, ODU2 and ODU3 switching levels.
   Therefore, when an FA between node B and C in the PSC layer network
   is needed, either of ODU1, ODU2 or ODU3 connection (FA-LSP) can be
   created in the TDM layer network.



    |<----------------------- ODU0 Connection ----------------------->|
    |                                                                 |
   ++------+   +---------+                       +---------+   +------++
   | +---+ |   |  +---+  |      FA (ODU1/2/3)    |  +---+  |   | +---+ |
   | |TDM|-+---+--+   |..|.......................|..|   +--+---+-|TDM| |
   | +---+ |   |  |   |  |                       |  |   |  |   | +---+ |
   +-------+   |  |TDM|  |       +-------+       |  |TDM|  |   +-------+
    Node A     |  |   |  | OTU3  | +---+ | OTU3  |  |   |  |    Node D
               |  |   +--+-------+-+TDM+-+-------+--+   |  |
               |  +---+  |       | +---+ |       |  +---+  |
               ++--------+       +-------+       +--------++
                |Node B           Node E           Node C |
                |                                         |
                |<--------- FA LSP (ODU1/2/3)------------>|

                  Figure 3b - TDM nested LSP provisioning





Zhang                   Expires January 2012                   [Page 5]

draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-04.txt                      July 2011


   Figure 3b is another example multi-layer network within the same
   region. When there is a need to set up an FA between node B and C for
   the client layer ODU0 connection, the server layer has multiple
   choices, e.g., ODU1 or ODU2 or ODU3, for the FA-LSP if the multi-
   stage multiplexing is supported at node B and C.

    |<---------------- Client layer LSP (Bandwidth 1) --------------->|
    |                                                                 |
   ++------+   +---------+                       +---------+   +------++
   | +---+ |   |  +---+  |           FA          |  +---+  |   | +---+ |
   | |PSC|-+---+--+   |..|.......................|..|   +--+---+-|PSC| |
   | +---+ |   |  |   |  |                       |  |   |  |   | +---+ |
   +-------+   |  |PSC|  |       +-------+       |  |PSC|  |   +-------+
    Node A     |  |   |  |       | +---+ |       |  |   |  |    Node D
               |  |   +--+-------+-+PSC+-+-------+--+   |  |
               |  +---+  |       | +---+ |       |  +---+  |
               ++--------+       +-------+       +--------++
                |Node B           Node E           Node C |
                |                                         |
                |<--- Service layer LSP (Bandwidth 2) --->|

                  Figure 3c - PSC nested LSP provisioning

   Figure 3c is a third example showing an LSP nesting scenario in a PSC
   signal-layer network (e.g., an MPLS-TP network). A PSC tunnel passing
   through node B, E and C is requested to carry the client layer LSP.
   There are multiple choices of the bandwidth of the tunnel, on the
   premise that the bandwidth of the FA-LSP is equal to or larger than
   the client layer LSP.

   The selection of server layer switching matrix and switching
   granularity is based on both policy and bandwidth resources. The
   selection can be performed by planning tool and/or NMS/PCE/VNTM
   (Virtual Network Topology Manager, see [RFC5623]) and/or the network
   node.



3.3. Selection of Adaptation Capabilities

   Adaptation function is also needed to be selected when creating the
   server layer connection. This is because the edge nodes may support
   multiple adaptation functions.






Zhang                   Expires January 2012                   [Page 6]

draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-04.txt                      July 2011


   +-------+   +-----------+                     +---------+   +-------+
   | +---+ |   |   +---+   |          FA         |  +---+  |   | +---+ |
   | |PSC|-+---+---+PSC|...|.....................|..|PSC+--+---+-|PSC| |
   | +---+ |   |   +---+   |                     |  +-+-+  |   | +---+ |
   +-------+   |___|_ _|___|                     |  __|__  |   +-------+
    Node A     |\_A_/ \_B_/|                     |  \_A_/  |    Node D
               |   |   |   |      +-------+      |    |    |
               |   +---+   |      | +---+ |      |  +-+-+  |
               |   |TDM+---+------+-+TDM+-+------+--+TDM|  |
               |   +---+   |      | +---+ |      |  +---+  |
               +-----------+      +-------+      +---------+
                  Node B           Node E          Node C

      _____                             _____
      \_A_/: Adaptation_Function_A;     \_B_/: Adaptation_Function_B;

                Figure 4 - Selection of adaptation function

   For example, in figure 4, the edge node B supports two adaptation
   functions, i.e., adaptation_function_A and adaptation_function_B,
   while the edge node C only supports adaptation_function_A. In this
   case, only adaptation_function_A can be used for the server layer
   connection.

   The Call procedure ([RFC4974]) between edge node B and C may be used
   to negotiate and determine the adaptation function for the server
   layer if the call function is supported.

4. Signaling Extension Requirements for Server Layer Selection

   [RFC5623], the framework of PCE-based MLN, provides the models of
   cross-layer LSP path computation and creation, which are listed below:

   -  Inter-Layer Path Computation Models:

      o  Single PCE

      o  Multiple PCE with inter-PCE

      o  Multiple PCE without inter-PCE

   -  Inter-Layer Path Control Models:

      o  PCE-VNTM cooperation



Zhang                   Expires January 2012                   [Page 7]

draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-04.txt                      July 2011


      o  Higher-layer signaling trigger

      o  NMS-VNTM cooperation (integrated flavor)

      o  NMS-VNTM cooperation (separate flavor)

   This session keeps align with [RFC5623] except that the restriction
   of using PCE for path computation is not necessary (i.e., other
   element, such as network node, may also have path computation
   capability).

   In this document, those models in [RFC4206] are reclassified into 3
   models on the viewpoint of signaling:

   -  Model 1: Pre-provisioning of FA-LSP

   -  Model 2: Signaling trigger server layer path computation

   -  Model 3: Full path computation at source node



4.1. Model 1: Pre-provisioning of FA-LSP

   In this model, the FA-LSP in the server layer is created before
   initiating the signaling of the client layer LSP. Two typical
   scenarios using this model are:

   -  Network planning and building at the stage of client network
      initialization.

   -  NMS/VNTM triggering the creation of FA-LSP when computing the path
      of client layer LSP. The path control models of PCE-VNTM
      cooperation and NMS-VNTM cooperation (both integrated and separate
      flavor) in [RFC5623] belong to this scenario.

   In such case, the server layer selection and path computation is
   performed by planning tool or NMS/PCE/VNTM or the edge node. The
   signaling of client layer LSP and server layer FA-LSP are separated.
   The normal LSP creation procedures ([RFC3471] and [RFC3473]) are
   performed for these two LSPs and no new extension is required.








Zhang                   Expires January 2012                   [Page 8]

draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-04.txt                      July 2011


4.2. Model 2: Signaling trigger server layer path computation

   In this model, the source node of client layer LSP only computes the
   route in its layer network. When the signaling of the client layer
   LSP reaches at the region edge node, the edge node performs server
   layer FA-LSP path computation and then creates the FA-LSP. When PCE
   is introduced to perform path computation in the multi-layer network,
   this model is the same as the model of "Higher-layer signaling
   trigger with Multiple PCE without inter-PCE" in [RFC5623].

   In such case, the edge node will receive the client layer PATH
   message with a loose ERO indicating an FA is requested, and may
   perform the server layer selection (e.g., through the server layer
   PCE or the VNTM) and then compute and set up the path of the FA-LSP.
   The signaling procedure of client layer LSP and server layer FA-LSP
   is described detailedly in [RFC4206] and [RFC6107].

   It's possible that the source node of the client layer LSP selects
   the server layer SC and/or granularity and/or adaptation function
   when performing path computation in the client layer, and requests or
   suggests the edge node to use an appointed server layer to create the
   FA-LSP.

   The XRO including SC sub-object ([RFC6001]) is adopted for the server
   layer SC exclusion, which can be used indirectly to select server
   layer SC. Such solution is not straightforward enough and further
   more cannot be used for the selection of server layer granularity and
   adaptation function.

   Therefore, in this case, new extensions for the selection of server
   layer SC, switching granularity and adaptation function are required.



4.3. Model 3: Full path computation at source node

   In this model, the source node of the client layer LSP performs a
   full path computation including the client layer and the server layer
   routes. The server layer FA-LSP creation is triggered at the edge
   node by the client layer LSP signaling. When PCE is introduced to
   perform path computation in the multi-layer network, this model is
   the same as the model of "Higher-layer signaling trigger with Single
   PCE" or "Higher-layer signaling trigger with Multiple PCE with inter-
   PCE" in [RFC5623].





Zhang                   Expires January 2012                   [Page 9]

draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-04.txt                      July 2011


   In such case, the server layer selection and server layer path
   computation is performed at the source node of the client layer LSP
   (e.g., through VNTM or PCE), but not at the edge node.

   In [RFC4206], the ERO which contains the list of nodes and links
   (including the client layer and server layer) along the path is used
   in the client layer PATH message. The edge node can find out the tail
   end of the FA-LSP based on the switching capability of the node using
   the IGP database (see session 6.2 of [RFC 4206]).

   Similar to the problem of model 2, the edge node is not aware of
   which switching granularity and which adaptation function to be
   selected for the FA-LSP because the ERO and/or XRO do not contain
   such information. Therefore, the edge node may not be able to create
   the FA-LSP, or may select another switching granularity by itself
   which is different from the one selected previously at the source
   node, which makes the creation of hierarchy LSP out of control.

   Therefore, new extensions for the selection of server layer SC,
   switching granularity and adaptation function are also required in
   this model.



5. ERO Sub-Object

   In order to solve the problems described in the previous sessions, a
   new sub-object named SERVER_LAYER_INFO sub-object is introduced in
   this document, which is carried in the ERO and is used to indicate
   which server layer to create the FA-LSP.

   The SERVER_LAYER_INFO sub-object is put immediately behind the node
   or link (interface) address sub-object, indicating the related node
   is a region edge node on the LSP in the ERO.

   The format of the SERVER_LAYER_INFO sub-object is shown below:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |L|    Type     |     Length    |M|         Reserved            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | LSP Enc. Type |Switching Type |            G-PID              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Traffic Parameters                        |
   ~                                                               ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


Zhang                   Expires January 2012                  [Page 10]

draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-04.txt                      July 2011


   -  L bit: MUST be zero and MUST be ignored when received.

   -  Type: The SERVER_LAYER_INFO sub-object has a type of xx (TBD).

   -  Length: The total length of the sub-object in bytes, including the
      Type and Length fields. The value of this field is always a
      multiple of 4.

   -  M (Mandatory) bit: When set, it means the edge node MUST set up
      the FA-LSP in the appointed server layer; otherwise, the appointed
      server layer is suggested and the edge node may select other
      server layer by local policy.

   -  LSP Encoding Type, Switching Type and G-PID: These 3 fields are
      used to point out which switching layer is requested to set up the
      FA-LSP. The values of these 3 fields are inherited from the
      Generalized Label Request Object in GMPLS signaling, referring to
      [RFC3471], [RFC3473] and other related standards and drafts. Note
      that G-PID can be used to indicate the payload type of the server
      layer (i.e., the client signal) as well as the adaptation function
      for adapting the client signal into the server layer FA-LSP.

   -  Traffic Parameters: The traffic parameters field is used to
      indicate the switching granularity of the FA-LSP. The format of
      this field depends on the switching technology of the server layer
      (which can be deduced from the LSP Encoding Type and Switching
      Type fields in this sub-object) and is consistent with the
      existing standards and drafts. For example, the Traffic Parameters
      of Ethernet, SONET/SDH and OTN are defined by the [RFC6003],
      [RFC4606] and [OTN-ctrl] respectively.



5.1. Application of SERVER_LAYER_INFO sub-object

   When a node receives a PATH message containing ERO and finds that
   there is a SERVER_LAYER_INFO sub-object immediately behind the node
   or link address sub-object related to itself, the node determines
   that it's a region edge node. Then, the edge node finds out the
   server layer selection information from the sub-object:

   -  Determine the switching layer by the LSP Encoding Type and
      Switching Type fields;

   -  Determine the switching granularity of the FA-LSP by the Traffic
      Parameters field;



Zhang                   Expires January 2012                  [Page 11]

draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-04.txt                      July 2011


   -  Determine the adaptation function for adapting the client signal
      into the server layer FA-LSP by the G-PID field.

   The edge node MUST then determine the other edge of the region, i.e.,
   the tail end of the FA-LSP, with respect to the subsequence of hops
   of the ERO. The node that satisfies the following conditions will be
   treated as the tail end of the FA-LSP:

   -  There is a SERVER_LAYER_INFO sub-object that immediately behind
      the node or link address sub-object which is related to that node;

   -  The LSP Encoding Type, Switching Type, G-PID and the Traffic
      Parameters fields of this SERVER_LAYER_INFO sub-object is the same
      as the SERVER_LAYER_INFO sub-object corresponding to the head end;

   -  The node is the first one that satisfies the two conditions above
      in the subsequence of hops of the ERO.

   If a match of tail end is found, the head end now has the clear
   server layer information of the FA-LSP and then initiates an RSVP-TE
   session to create the FA-LSP in the appointed server layer between
   the head end and the tail end.



6. Security Considerations

   TBD.

7. IANA Considerations

   TBD.

8. Acknowledgments

   TBD.



9. References

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

   [RFC3945]   Mannie, E., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
               (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004.



Zhang                   Expires January 2012                  [Page 12]

draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-04.txt                      July 2011


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

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

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

   [RFC5212]   K. Shiomoto et al, "Requirements for GMPLS-Based Multi-
               Region and Multi-Layer Networks (MRN/MLN)", RFC5212, July
               2008.

   [RFC5339]   JL. Le Roux et al, "Evaluation of Existing GMPLS
               Protocols against Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks
               (MLN/MRN)", RFC5339, September 2008.

   [RFC4206]   K. Kompella et al, "Label Switched Paths (LSP) Hierarchy
               with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
               Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC4206, October 2005.

   [RFC6107]   K. Shiomoto, A. Farrel, "Procedures for Dynamically
               Signaled Hierarchical Label Switched Paths", RFC6107,
               February 2011.

   [RFC4974]   D. Papadimitriou and A. Farrel, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
               RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in Support of Calls",
               RFC4974, August 2007.

   [RFC6001]   Dimitri Papadimitriou et al, "Generalized Multi-Protocol
               Label Switching (GMPLS) Protocol Extensions for Multi-
               Layer and Multi-Region Networks (MLN/MRN)", RFC6001,
               October, 2010.

   [RFC5623]   E. Oki et al, "Framework for PCE-Based Inter-Layer MPLS
               and GMPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 5623, September 2009.

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





Zhang                   Expires January 2012                  [Page 13]

draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-04.txt                      July 2011


   [OTN-ctrl]  Fatai Zhang et al, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
               witching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for the evolving
               G.709 Optical Transport Networks Control", draft-zhang-
               ccamp-gmpls-evolving-g709-04.txt, February 27, 2010.

   [RFC6003]   D. Papadimitriou, "Ethernet Traffic Parameters", RFC6003,
               October, 2010.

   [IEEE]      "IEEE Standard for Binary Floating-Point Arithmetic",
               ANSI/IEEE Standard 754-1985, Institute of Electrical and
               Electronics Engineers, August 1985.



10. Authors' Addresses

   Fatai Zhang
   Huawei Technologies
   F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base
   Bantian, Longgang District
   Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China

   Phone: +86-755-28972912
   Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com


   Dan Li
   Huawei Technologies
   F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base
   Bantian, Longgang District
   Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China

   Phone: +86-755-28970230
   Email: huawei.danli@huawei.com


   Yi Lin
   Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
   F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base
   Bantian, Longgang District
   Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China

   Phone: +86-755-28972914
   Email: yi.lin@huawei.com





Zhang                   Expires January 2012                  [Page 14]

draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-04.txt                      July 2011


   Francisco Javier Jimenez Chico
   Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo
   Emilio Vargas 6
   Madrid, 28043 Spain

   Phone: +34 913379037
   Email: fjjc@tid.es


   Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
   Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo
   Emilio Vargas 6
   Madrid, 28045 Spain

   Phone: +34 913374013
   Email: ogondio@tid.es


   Cyril Margaria
   Nokia Siemens Networks
   St Martin Strasse 76
   Munich,   81541
   Germany

   Phone: +49 89 5159 16934
   Email: cyril.margaria@nsn.com



Intellectual Property

   The IETF Trust takes no position regarding the validity or scope of
   any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be
   claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology
   described in any IETF Document or the extent to which any license
   under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it
   represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any
   such rights.

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




Zhang                   Expires January 2012                  [Page 15]

draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-04.txt                      July 2011


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

   The definitive version of an IETF Document is that published by, or
   under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of IETF Documents that are
   published by third parties, including those that are translated into
   other languages, should not be considered to be definitive versions
   of IETF Documents. The definitive version of these Legal Provisions
   is that published by, or under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of
   these Legal Provisions that are published by third parties, including
   those that are translated into other languages, should not be
   considered to be definitive versions of these Legal Provisions.

   For the avoidance of doubt, each Contributor to the IETF Standards
   Process licenses each Contribution that he or she makes as part of
   the IETF Standards Process to the IETF Trust pursuant to the
   provisions of RFC 5378. No language to the contrary, or terms,
   conditions or rights that differ from or are inconsistent with the
   rights and licenses granted under RFC 5378, shall have any effect and
   shall be null and void, whether published or posted by such
   Contributor, or included with or in such Contribution.


Disclaimer of Validity

   All IETF Documents and the information contained therein are provided
   on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
   REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE
   IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL
   WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY
   WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION THEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE
   ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
   FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.



Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents


Zhang                   Expires January 2012                  [Page 16]

draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-04.txt                      July 2011


   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.









































Zhang                   Expires January 2012                  [Page 17]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/