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

Versions: (draft-rabbat-ccamp-rfc3946bis) 00 01 RFC 4606

Network Working Group                                         E. Mannie
Internet Draft                                               Consultant
Replaces RFC 3946                                      D. Papadimitriou
Category: Standard Track                                        Alcatel
Expiration Date: May 2006
                                                          December 2005


     Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions
                for Synchronous Optical Network (SONET)
            and Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control

                   draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc3946bis-01.txt



Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

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

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

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

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

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   This document provides minor clarification to RFC 3946.

   This document is a companion to the Generalized Multi-Protocol
   Label Switching (GMPLS) signaling. It defines the Synchronous
   Optical Network (SONET)/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH)
   technology specific information needed when using GMPLS signaling.


E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors)                                 1

draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc3946bis-01.txt                       December 2005

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction ..............................................  2
   2.  SONET and SDH Traffic Parameters ..........................  2
       2.1.  SONET/SDH Traffic Parameters ........................  3
       2.2.  RSVP-TE Details .....................................  9
       2.3.  CR-LDP Details ......................................  9
   3.  SONET and SDH Labels ...................................... 10
   4.  Acknowledgments ........................................... 15
   5.  Security Considerations ................................... 16
   6.  IANA Considerations ....................................... 16
   7.  References ................................................ 16
       7.1.  Normative References ................................ 16
   Appendix 1 - Signal Type Values Extension for VC-3 ............ 18
   Annex 1 - Examples ............................................ 18
   Contributors .................................................. 21
   Authors' Addresses ............................................ 25
   Full Copyright Statement ...................................... 26

1. Introduction

   As described in [RFC3945], Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) extends MPLS
   from supporting packet (Packet Switching Capable - PSC) interfaces
   and switching to include support of four new classes of interfaces
   and switching: Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC), Time-Division
   Multiplex (TDM), Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) and Fiber-Switch
   Capable (FSC). A functional description of the extensions to MPLS
   signaling needed to support the new classes of interfaces and
   switching is provided in [RFC3471]. [RFC3473] describes RSVP-TE
   specific formats and mechanisms needed to support all five classes
   of interfaces, and CR-LDP extensions can be found in [RFC3472].

   This document presents details that are specific to Synchronous
   Optical Network (SONET)/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH). Per
   [RFC3471], SONET/SDH specific parameters are carried in the
   signaling protocol in traffic parameter specific objects.

   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].

   Moreover, the reader is assumed to be familiar with the
   terminology in ANSI [T1.105], ITU-T [G.707] as well as [RFC3471],
   [RFC3472], and [RFC3473]. The following abbreviations are used in
   this document:

      DCC: Data Communications Channel.
      LOVC: Lower Order Virtual Container
      HOVC: Higher Order Virtual Container
      MS: Multiplex Section.
      MSOH: Multiplex Section overhead.
      POH: Path overhead.
      RS: Regenerator Section.
      RSOH: Regenerator section overhead.

E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors)                                 2

draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc3946bis-01.txt                       December 2005

      SDH: Synchronous digital hierarchy.
      SOH: Section overhead.
      SONET: Synchronous Optical Network.
      SPE: Synchronous Payload Envelope.
      STM(-N): Synchronous Transport Module (-N) (SDH).
      STS(-N): Synchronous Transport Signal-Level N (SONET).
      VC-n: Virtual Container-n (SDH).
      VTn: Virtual Tributary-n (SONET).

2. SONET and SDH Traffic Parameters

   This section defines the GMPLS traffic parameters for SONET/SDH.
   The protocol specific formats, for the SONET/SDH-specific RSVP-TE
   objects and CR-LDP TLVs are described in sections 2.2 and 2.3
   respectively.

   These traffic parameters specify indeed a base set of capabilities
   for SONET ANSI [T1.105] and SDH ITU-T [G.707] such as
   concatenation and transparency. Other documents may further
   enhance this set of capabilities in the future. For instance,
   signaling for SDH over PDH ITU-T G.832 or sub-STM-0 ITU-T G.708
   interfaces could be defined.

   The traffic parameters defined hereafter (see Section 2.1) MUST be
   used when the label is encoded as SUKLM as defined in this memo
   (see Section 3). They MUST also be used when requesting one of
   Section/RS or Line/MS overhead transparent STS-1/STM-0, STS-
   3*N/STM-N (N=1, 4, 16, 64, 256) signals.

   The traffic parameters and label encoding defined in [RFC3471],
   Section 3.2, MUST be used for fully transparent STS-1/STM-0, STS-
   3*N/STM-N (N=1, 4, 16, 64, 256) signal requests. A fully
   transparent signal is one for which all overhead is left
   unmodified by intermediate nodes, i.e., when all defined
   Transparency (T) bits would be set if the traffic parameters
   defined in section 2.1 were used.

2.1. SONET/SDH Traffic Parameters

   The traffic parameters for SONET/SDH are organized 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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Signal Type  |      RCC      |              NCC              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |              NVC              |        Multiplier (MT)        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       Transparency (T)                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           Profile (P)                         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Annex 1 lists examples of SONET and SDH signal coding.

E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors)                                 3

draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc3946bis-01.txt                       December 2005


   o) Signal Type (ST): 8 bits

   This field indicates the type of Elementary Signal that comprises
   the requested LSP. Several transforms can be applied successively
   on the Elementary Signal to build the Final Signal being actually
   requested for the LSP.

   Each transform application is optional and must be ignored if
   zero, except the Multiplier (MT) that cannot be zero and is
   ignored if equal to one.

   Transforms must be applied strictly in the following order:

   - First, contiguous concatenation (by using the RCC and NCC
     fields) can be optionally applied on the Elementary Signal,
     resulting in a contiguously concatenated signal.
   - Second, virtual concatenation (by using the NVC field) can be
     optionally applied on the Elementary Signal resulting in a
     virtually concatenated signal.
   - Third, some transparency (by using the Transparency field) can
     be optionally specified when requesting a frame as signal rather
     than an SPE or VC based signal.
   - Fourth, a multiplication (by using the Multiplier field) can be
     optionally applied either directly on the Elementary Signal, or on
     the contiguously concatenated signal obtained from the first
     phase, or on the virtually concatenated signal obtained from the
     second phase, or on these signals combined with some transparency.

   Permitted Signal Type values for SONET/SDH are:

   Value  Type (Elementary Signal)
   -----  ------------------------
     1     VT1.5  SPE / VC-11
     2     VT2    SPE / VC-12
     3     VT3    SPE
     4     VT6    SPE / VC-2
     5     STS-1  SPE / VC-3
     6     STS-3c SPE / VC-4
     7     STS-1      / STM-0   (only when requesting transparency)
     8     STS-3      / STM-1   (only when requesting transparency)
     9     STS-12     / STM-4   (only when requesting transparency)
     10    STS-48     / STM-16  (only when requesting transparency)
     11    STS-192    / STM-64  (only when requesting transparency)
     12    STS-768    / STM-256 (only when requesting transparency)

   A dedicated signal type is assigned to a SONET STS-3c SPE instead of
   coding it as a contiguous concatenation of three STS-1 SPEs. This is
   done in order to provide easy interworking between SONET and SDH
   signaling.

   Appendix 1 adds one signal type (optional) to the above values.



E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors)                                 4

draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc3946bis-01.txt                       December 2005

   o) Requested Contiguous Concatenation (RCC): 8 bits

   This field is used to request the optional SONET/SDH contiguous
   concatenation of the Elementary Signal.

   This field is a vector of flags. Each flag indicates the support
   of a particular type of contiguous concatenation. Several flags
   can be set at the same time to indicate a choice.

   These flags allow an upstream node to indicate to a downstream
   node the different types of contiguous concatenation that it
   supports. However, the downstream node decides which one to use
   according to its own rules.

   A downstream node receiving simultaneously more than one flag
   chooses a particular type of contiguous concatenation, if any
   supported, and based on criteria that are out of this document
   scope. A downstream node that doesn't support any of the
   concatenation types indicated by the field must refuse the LSP
   request. In particular, it must refuse the LSP request if it
   doesn't support contiguous concatenation at all.

   When several flags have been set, the upstream node retrieves the
   (single) type of contiguous concatenation the downstream node has
   selected by looking at the position indicated by the first label
   and the number of label(s) as returned by the downstream node (see
   also Section 3).

   The entire field is set to zero to indicate that no contiguous
   concatenation is requested at all (default value). A non-zero
   field indicates that some contiguous concatenation is requested.

   The following flag is defined:

      Flag 1 (bit 1): Standard contiguous concatenation.

   Flag 1 indicates that the standard SONET/SDH contiguous
   concatenation as defined in [T1.105]/[G.707] is supported.  Note
   that bit 1 is the low order bit. Other flags are reserved for
   extensions, if not used they must be set to zero when sent, and
   should be ignored when received.

   See note 1 hereafter in the section on the NCC about the SONET
   contiguous concatenation of STS-1 SPEs when the number of
   components is a multiple of three.

   o) Number of Contiguous Components (NCC): 16 bits

   This field indicates the number of identical SONET SPEs/SDH VCs
   (i.e., Elementary Signal) that are requested to be concatenated,
   as specified in the RCC field.

   Note 1: when requesting a SONET STS-Nc SPE with N=3*X, the


E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors)                                 5

draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc3946bis-01.txt                       December 2005

   Elementary Signal to use must always be an STS-3c_SPE signal type
   and the value of NCC must always be equal to X. This allows also
   facilitating the interworking between SONET and SDH. In
   particular, it means that the contiguous concatenation of three
   STS-1 SPEs can not be requested because according to this
   specification, this type of signal must be coded using the STS-3c
   SPE signal type.

   Note 2: when requesting a transparent STS-N/STM-N signal limited
   to a single contiguously concatenated STS-Nc_SPE/VC-4-Nc, the
   signal type must be STS-N/STM-N, RCC with flag 1 and NCC set to 1.

   The NCC value must be consistent with the type of contiguous
   concatenation being requested in the RCC field. In particular,
   this field is irrelevant if no contiguous concatenation is
   requested (RCC = 0), in that case it must be set to zero when
   sent, and should be ignored when received. A RCC value different
   from 0 implies a number of contiguous components greater than or
   equal to 1.

   Note 3: Following these rules, when requesting a VC-4 signal, the
   RCC and the NCC values SHOULD be set to 0 whereas for an STS-3c
   SPE signal, the RCC and the NCC values SHOULD be set 1. However,
   if local conditions allow and since the setting of the RCC and NCC
   values is locally driven, the requesting upstream node MAY set the
   RCC and NCC values to either SDH or SONET settings without
   impacting the function. Moreover, the downstream node SHOULD
   accept the requested values if local conditions allow. If these
   values cannot be supported, the receiver downstream node SHOULD
   generate a PathErr/NOTIFICATION message (see Section 2.2/2.3,
   respectively).

   o) Number of Virtual Components (NVC): 16 bits

   This field indicates the number of signals that are requested to
   be virtually concatenated. These signals are all of the same type
   by definition. They are Elementary Signal SPEs/VCs for which
   signal types are defined in this document, i.e., VT1.5_SPE/VC-11,
   VT2_SPE/VC-12, VT3_SPE, VT6_SPE/VC-2, STS-1_SPE/VC-3 or STS-
   3c_SPE/VC-4.

   This field is set to 0 (default value) to indicate that no virtual
   concatenation is requested.

   o) Multiplier (MT): 16 bits

   This field indicates the number of identical signals that are
   requested for the LSP, i.e., that form the Final Signal. These
   signals can be either identical Elementary Signals, or identical
   contiguously concatenated signals, or identical virtually
   concatenated signals. Note that all these signals belong thus to
   the same LSP.



E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors)                                 6

draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc3946bis-01.txt                       December 2005

   The distinction between the components of multiple virtually
   concatenated signals is done via the order of the labels that are
   specified in the signaling. The first set of labels must describe
   the first component (set of individual signals belonging to the
   first virtual concatenated signal), the second set must describe
   the second component (set of individual signals belonging to the
   second virtual concatenated signal) and so on.

   This field is set to one (default value) to indicate that exactly
   one instance of a signal is being requested. Intermediate and
   egress nodes MUST verify that the node itself and the interfaces
   on which the LSP will be established can support the requested
   multiplier value. If the requested values can not be supported,
   the receiver node MUST generate a PathErr/NOTIFICATION message
   (see Section 2.2/2.3, respectively).

   Zero is an invalid value. If received, the node MUST generate a
   PathErr/NOTIFICATION message (see Section 2.2/2.3, respectively).

   Note 1: when requesting a transparent STS-N/STM-N signal limited
   to a single contiguously concatenated STS-Nc-SPE/VC-4-Nc, the
   multiplier field MUST be equal to 1 (only valid value).

   o) Transparency (T): 32 bits

   This field is a vector of flags that indicates the type of
   transparency being requested. Several flags can be combined to
   provide different types of transparency. Not all combinations are
   necessarily valid. The default value for this field is zero, i.e.,
   no transparency requested.

   Transparency, as defined from the point of view of this signaling
   specification, is only applicable to the fields in the SONET/SDH
   frame overheads. In the SONET case, these are the fields in the
   Section Overhead (SOH), and the Line Overhead (LOH). In the SDH
   case, these are the fields in the Regenerator Section Overhead
   (RSOH), the Multiplex Section overhead (MSOH), and the pointer
   fields between the two. With SONET, the pointer fields are part of
   the LOH.

   Note as well that transparency is only applicable when using the
   following Signal Types: STS-1/STM-0, STS-3/STM-1, STS-12/STM-4,
   STS-48/STM-16, STS-192/STM-64 and STS-768/STM-256. At least one
   transparency type must be specified when requesting such a signal
   type.

   Transparency indicates precisely which fields in these overheads
   must be delivered unmodified at the other end of the LSP. An
   ingress LSR requesting transparency will pass these overhead
   fields that must be delivered to the egress LSR without any
   change. From the ingress and egress LSRs point of views, these
   fields must be seen as unmodified.



E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors)                                 7

draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc3946bis-01.txt                       December 2005

   Transparency is not applied at the interfaces with the initiating
   and terminating LSRs, but is only applied between intermediate
   LSRs. The transparency field is used to request an LSP that
   supports the requested transparency type; it may also be used to
   setup the transparency process to be applied at each intermediate
   LSR.

   The different transparency flags are the following:

      Flag 1 (bit 1): Section/Regenerator Section layer.
      Flag 2 (bit 2): Line/Multiplex Section layer.

   Where bit 1 is the low order bit. Other flags are reserved, they
   should be set to zero when sent, and should be ignored when
   received. A flag is set to one to indicate that the corresponding
   transparency is requested.

   Intermediate and egress nodes MUST verify that the node itself and
   the interfaces on which the LSP will be established can support
   the requested transparency. If the requested flags can not be
   supported, the receiver node MUST generate a PathErr/NOTIFICATION
   message (see Section 2.2/2.3, respectively).

   Section/Regenerator Section layer transparency means that the
   entire frames must be delivered unmodified. This implies that
   pointers cannot be adjusted. When using Section/Regenerator
   Section layer transparency all other flags MUST be ignored.

   Line/Multiplex Section layer transparency means that the LOH/MSOH
   must be delivered unmodified. This implies that pointers cannot be
   adjusted.

   o) Profile (P): 32 bits

   This field is intended to indicate particular capabilities that
   must be supported for the LSP, for example monitoring
   capabilities.

   No standard profile is currently defined and this field SHOULD be
   set to zero when transmitted and SHOULD be ignored when received.

   In the future TLV based extensions may be created.

2.2. RSVP-TE Details

   For RSVP-TE, the SONET/SDH traffic parameters are carried in the
   SONET/SDH SENDER_TSPEC and FLOWSPEC objects. The same format is
   used both for SENDER_TSPEC object and FLOWSPEC objects. The
   content of the objects is defined above in Section 2.1. The
   objects have the following class and type for SONET ANSI T1.105
   and SDH ITU-T G.707:

      SONET/SDH SENDER_TSPEC object: Class = 12, C-Type = 4
      SONET/SDH FLOWSPEC object: Class = 9, C-Type = 4

E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors)                                 8

draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc3946bis-01.txt                       December 2005


   There is no Adspec associated with the SONET/SDH SENDER_TSPEC.
   Either the Adspec is omitted or an int-serv Adspec with the
   Default General Characterization Parameters and Guaranteed Service
   fragment is used, see [RFC2210].

   For a particular sender in a session the contents of the FLOWSPEC
   object received in a Resv message SHOULD be identical to the
   contents of the SENDER_TSPEC object received in the corresponding
   Path message. If the objects do not match, a ResvErr message with
   a "Traffic Control Error/Bad Flowspec value" error SHOULD be
   generated.

   Intermediate and egress nodes MUST verify that the node itself and
   the interfaces on which the LSP will be established can support
   the requested Signal Type, RCC, NCC, NVC and Multiplier (as
   defined in Section 2.1). If the requested value(s) can not be
   supported, the receiver node MUST generate a PathErr message with
   a "Traffic Control Error/ Service unsupported" indication (see
   [RFC2205]).

   In addition, if the MT field is received with a zero value, the
   node MUST generate a PathErr message with a "Traffic Control
   Error/Bad Tspec value" indication (see [RFC2205]).

   Intermediate nodes MUST also verify that the node itself and the
   interfaces on which the LSP will be established can support the
   requested Transparency (as defined in Section 2.1). If the
   requested value(s) can not be supported, the receiver node MUST
   generate a PathErr message with a "Traffic Control Error/Service
   unsupported" indication (see [RFC2205]).

2.3. CR-LDP Details

   For CR-LDP, the SONET/SDH traffic parameters are carried in the
   SONET/SDH Traffic Parameters TLV. The content of the TLV is
   defined above in Section 2.1. The header of the TLV 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|          Type             |      Length                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The type field for the SONET/SDH Traffic Parameters TLV is:
   0x0838.

   Intermediate and egress nodes MUST verify that the node itself and
   the interfaces on which the LSP will be established can support
   the requested Signal Type, RCC, NCC, NVC and Multiplier (as
   defined in Section 2.1). If the requested value(s) can not be
   supported, the receiver node MUST generate a NOTIFICATION message
   with a "Resource Unavailable" status code (see [RFC3212]).

E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors)                                 9

draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc3946bis-01.txt                       December 2005


   In addition, if the MT field is received with a zero value, the
   node MUST generate a NOTIFICATION message with a "Resource
   Unavailable" status code (see [RFC3212]).

   Intermediate nodes MUST also verify that the node itself and the
   interfaces on which the LSP will be established can support the
   requested Transparency (as defined in Section 2.1). If the
   requested value(s) can not be supported, the receiver node MUST
   generate a NOTIFICATION message with a "Resource Unavailable"
   status code (see [RFC3212]).

3. SONET and SDH Labels

   SONET and SDH each define a multiplexing structure. Both
   structures are trees whose roots are respectively an STS-N or an
   STM-N; and whose leaves are the signals that can be transported
   via the time-slots and switched between time-slots within an
   ingress port and time-slots within an egress port, i.e., a VTx
   SPE, an STS-x SPE or a VC-x. A SONET/SDH label will identify the
   exact position (i.e., first time-slot) of a particular VTx SPE,
   STS-x SPE or VC-x signal in a multiplexing structure. SONET and
   SDH labels are carried in the Generalized Label per [RFC3473] and
   [RFC3472].

   Note that by time-slots we mean the time-slots as they appear
   logically and sequentially in the multiplex, not as they appear
   after any possible interleaving.

   These multiplexing structures will be used as naming trees to
   create unique multiplex entry names or labels. The same format of
   label is used for SONET and SDH. As explained in [RFC3471], a
   label does not identify the "class" to which the label belongs.
   This is implicitly determined by the link on which the label is
   used.

   In case of signal concatenation or multiplication, a list of
   labels can appear in the Label field of a Generalized Label.

   In case of contiguous concatenation, only one label appears in the
   Label field. This unique label is encoded as a single 32 bit label
   value (as defined in this Section) of the Generalized Label object
   (Class-Num = 16, C-Type = 2)/TLV (0x0825). This label identifies
   the lowest time-slot occupied by the contiguously concatenated
   signal. By lowest time-slot we mean the one having the lowest
   label (value) when compared as integer values, i.e., the time-slot
   occupied by the first component signal of the concatenated signal
   encountered when descending the tree.

   In case of virtual concatenation, the explicit ordered list of all
   labels in the concatenation is given. This ordered list of labels
   is encoded as a sequence of 32 bit label values (as defined in
   this Section) of the Generalized Label object (Class-Num = 16, C-
   Type = 2)/TLV (0x0825). Each label indicates the first time-slot

E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors)                                10

draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc3946bis-01.txt                       December 2005

   occupied by a component of the virtually concatenated signal. The
   order of the labels must reflect the order of the payloads to
   concatenate (not the physical order of time-slots). The above
   representation limits virtual concatenation to remain within a
   single (component) link; it imposes as such a restriction compared
   to the ANSI [T1.105]/ ITU-T [G.707] recommendations. The standard
   definition for virtual concatenation allows each virtual
   concatenation components to travel over diverse paths. Within
   GMPLS, virtual concatenation components must travel over the same
   (component) link if they are part of the same LSP. This is due to
   the way that labels are bound to a (component) link. Note however,
   that the routing of components on different paths is indeed
   equivalent to establishing different LSPs, each one having its own
   route. Several LSPs can be initiated and terminated between the
   same nodes and their corresponding components can then be
   associated together (i.e., virtually concatenated).

   In case of multiplication (i.e., using the multiplier transform),
   the explicit ordered list of all labels that take part in the
   Final Signal is given. This ordered list of labels is encoded as a
   sequence of 32 bit label values (as defined in this Section) of
   the Generalized Label object (Class-Num = 16, C-Type = 2)/TLV
   (0x0825). In case of multiplication of virtually concatenated
   signals, the explicit ordered list of set of labels that take part
   in the Final Signal is given. The first set of labels indicates
   the time-slots occupied by the first virtually concatenated
   signal, the second set of labels indicates the time-slots occupied
   by the second virtually concatenated signal, and so on. The above
   representation limits multiplication to remain within a single
   (component) link.

   The format of the label for SONET and/or SDH TDM-LSR link 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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |               S               |   U   |   K   |   L   |   M   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   This is an extension of the numbering scheme defined in [G.707]
   sections 7.3.7 to 7.3.13, i.e., the (K, L, M) numbering.  Note
   that the higher order numbering scheme defined in [G.707] sections
   7.3.1 to 7.3.6 is not used here.

   Each letter indicates a possible branch number starting at the
   parent node in the multiplex structure. Branches are considered as
   numbered in increasing order, starting from the top of the
   multiplexing structure. The numbering starts at 1, zero is used to
   indicate a non-significant or ignored field.

   When a field is not significant or ignored in a particular context
   it MUST be set to zero when transmitted, and MUST be ignored when
   received.


E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors)                                11

draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc3946bis-01.txt                       December 2005

   When a hierarchy of SONET/SDH LSPs is used, a higher order LSP
   with a given bandwidth can be used to carry lower order LSPs.
   Remember here that a higher order LSP is established through a
   SONET/SDH higher order path layer network and a lower order LSP,
   through a SONET/SDH lower order path layer network (see also ITU-T
   G.803, Section 3 for the corresponding definitions). In this
   context, the higher order SONET/SDH LSP behaves as a "virtual
   link" with a given bandwidth (e.g., VC-3), it may also be used as
   a Forwarding Adjacency. A lower order SONET/SDH LSP can be
   established through that higher order LSP. Since a label is local
   to a (virtual) link, the highest part of that label (i.e., the S,
   U and K fields) is non-significant and is set to zero, i.e., the
   label is "0,0,0,L,M". Similarly, if the structure of the lower
   order LSP is unknown or not relevant, the lowest part of that
   label (i.e., the L and M fields) is non-significant and is set to
   zero, i.e., the label is "S,U,K,0,0".

   For instance, a VC-3 LSP can be used to carry lower order LSPs.
   In that case the labels allocated between the two ends of the VC-3
   LSP for the lower order LSPs will have S, U and K set to zero,
   i.e., non-significant, while L and M will be used to indicate the
   signal allocated in that VC-3.

   In case of tunneling such as VC-4 containing VC-3 containing
   VC-12/VC-11 where the SUKLM structure is not adequate to represent
   the full signal structure, a hierarchical approach must be used,
   i.e., per layer network signaling.

   The possible values of S, U, K, L and M are defined as follows:

   1. S=1->N is the index of a particular STS-3/AUG-1 inside an
      STS-N/STM-N multiplex. S is only significant for SONET STS-N
      (N>1) and SDH STM-N (N>0). S must be 0 and ignored for STS-1
      and STM-0.

   2. U=1->3 is the index of a particular STS-1_SPE/VC-3 within an
      STS-3/AUG-1. U is only significant for SONET STS-N (N>1) and
      SDH STM-N (N>0). U must be 0 and ignored for STS-1 and STM-0.

   3. K=1->3 is the index of a particular TUG-3 within a VC-4. K is
      only significant for an SDH VC-4 structured in TUG-3s. K must
      be 0 and ignored in all other cases.

   4. L=1->7 is the index of a particular VT_Group/TUG-2 within an
      STS-1_SPE/TUG-3 or VC-3. L must be 0 and ignored in all other
      cases.

   5. M is the index of a particular VT1.5_SPE/VC-11, VT2_SPE/VC-12
      or VT3_SPE within a VT_Group/TUG-2. M=1->2 indicates a specific
      VT3 SPE inside the corresponding VT Group, these values MUST
      NOT be used for SDH since there is no equivalent of VT3 with
      SDH. M=3->5 indicates a specific VT2_SPE/VC-12 inside the
      corresponding VT_Group/TUG-2. M=6->9 indicates a specific
      VT1.5_SPE/VC-11 inside the corresponding VT_Group/TUG-2.

E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors)                                12

draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc3946bis-01.txt                       December 2005


   Note that a label always has to be interpreted according the
   SONET/SDH traffic parameters, i.e., a label by itself does not
   allow knowing which signal is being requested (a label is context
   sensitive).

   The label format defined in this section, referred to as SUKLM,
   MUST be used for any SONET/SDH signal requests that are not
   transparent i.e., when all Transparency (T) bits defined in
   section 2.1 are set to zero. Any transparent STS-1/STM-0/STS-
   3*N/STM-N (N=1, 4, 16, 64, 256) signal request MUST use a label
   format as defined in [RFC3471].

      The S encoding is summarized in the following table:

          S    SDH                     SONET
         ------------------------------------------------
          0    other                   other
          1    1st AUG-1               1st STS-3
          2    2nd AUG-1               2nd STS-3
          3    3rd AUG-1               3rd STS-3
          4    4rd AUG-1               4rd STS-3
          :    :                       :
          N    Nth AUG-1               Nth STS-3

      The U encoding is summarized in the following table:

          U    SDH AUG-1               SONET STS-3
         -------------------------------------------------
          0    other                   other
          1    1st VC-3                1st STS-1 SPE
          2    2nd VC-3                2nd STS-1 SPE
          3    3rd VC-3                3rd STS-1 SPE

      The K encoding is summarized in the following table:

          K    SDH VC-4
         ---------------
          0    other
          1    1st TUG-3
          2    2nd TUG-3
          3    3rd TUG-3

      The L encoding is summarized in the following table:

          L    SDH TUG-3    SDH VC-3    SONET STS-1 SPE
         -------------------------------------------------
          0    other        other       other
          1    1st TUG-2    1st TUG-2   1st VTG
          2    2nd TUG-2    2nd TUG-2   2nd VTG
          3    3rd TUG-2    3rd TUG-2   3rd VTG
          4    4th TUG-2    4th TUG-2   4th VTG
          5    5th TUG-2    5th TUG-2   5th VTG
          6    6th TUG-2    6th TUG-2   6th VTG

E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors)                                13

draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc3946bis-01.txt                       December 2005

          7    7th TUG-2    7th TUG-2   7th VTG

      The M encoding is summarized in the following table:

          M    SDH TUG-2                 SONET VTG
         -------------------------------------------------
          0    other                     other
          1    -                         1st VT3 SPE
          2    -                         2nd VT3 SPE
          3    1st VC-12                 1st VT2 SPE
          4    2nd VC-12                 2nd VT2 SPE
          5    3rd VC-12                 3rd VT2 SPE
          6    1st VC-11                 1st VT1.5 SPE
          7    2nd VC-11                 2nd VT1.5 SPE
          8    3rd VC-11                 3rd VT1.5 SPE
          9    4th VC-11                 4th VT1.5 SPE

   Examples of labels:

   Example 1: the label for the STS-3c_SPE/VC-4 in the Sth STS-3/AUG-
              1 is: S>0, U=0, K=0, L=0, M=0.

   Example 2: the label for the VC-3 within the Kth-1 TUG-3 within
              the VC-4 in the Sth AUG-1 is: S>0, U=0, K>0, L=0, M=0.

   Example 3: the label for the Uth-1 STS-1_SPE/VC-3 within the Sth
              STS-3/AUG-1 is: S>0, U>0, K=0, L=0, M=0.

   Example 4: the label for the VT6/VC-2 in the Lth-1 VT Group/TUG-2
              in the Uth-1 STS-1_SPE/VC-3 within the Sth STS-3/AUG-1
              is: S>0, U>0, K=0, L>0, M=0.

   Example 5: the label for the 3rd VT1.5_SPE/VC-11 in the Lth-1 VT
              Group/TUG-2 within the Uth-1 STS-1_SPE/VC-3 within the
              Sth STS-3/AUG-1 is: S>0, U>0, K=0, L>0, M=8.

   Example 6: the label for the STS-12c SPE/VC-4-4c which uses the
              9th STS-3/AUG-1 as its first timeslot is: S=9, U=0,
              K=0, L=0, M=0.

   In case of contiguous concatenation, the label that is used is the
   lowest label (value) of the contiguously concatenated signal as
   explained before. The higher part of the label indicates where the
   signal starts and the lowest part is not significant.

   In case of STM-0/STS-1, the values of S, U and K must be equal to
   zero according to the field coding rules.  For instance, when
   requesting a VC-3 in an STM-0 the label is S=0, U=0, K=0, L=0,
   M=0. When requesting a VC-11 in a VC-3 in an STM-0 the label is
   S=0, U=0, K=0, L>0, M=6..9.

   Note: when a Section/RS or Line/MS transparent STS-1/STM-0/STS-
   3*N/STM-N (N=1, 4, 16, 64, 256) signal is requested, the SUKLM


E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors)                                14

draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc3946bis-01.txt                       December 2005

   label format and encoding is not applicable and the label encoding
   MUST follow the rules defined in [RFC3471] Section 3.2.

4. Acknowledgments

   Valuable comments and input were received from the CCAMP mailing
   list where outstanding discussions took place.

   The authors would like to thank Richard Rabbat for its valuable
   input that lead to this revision.

5. Security Considerations

   This document introduces no new security considerations to either
   [RFC3473] or [RFC3472]. GMPLS security is described in section 11
   of [RFC3471] and refers to [RFC3209] for RSVP-TE and to [RFC3212]
   for CR-LDP.

6. IANA Considerations

   Three values have been defined by IANA for this document.

   Two RSVP C-Types in registry:
      http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters

      -  A SONET/SDH SENDER_TSPEC object: Class = 12, C-Type = 4 (see
         Section 2.2).

      -  A SONET/SDH FLOWSPEC object: Class = 9, C-Type = 4 (see
         Section 2.2).

   One LDP TLV Type in registry:
      http://www.iana.org/assignments/ldp-namespaces

      -  A type field for the SONET/SDH Traffic Parameters TLV (see
         Section 2.3).

7. References

7.1 Normative References

   [G.707]     ITU-T Recommendation G.707, "Network Node Interface for
               the Synchronous Digital Hierarchy", October 2000.

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

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

   [RFC2210]   Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated
               Services", RFC 2210, September 1997.


E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors)                                15

draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc3946bis-01.txt                       December 2005

   [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.

   [RFC3212]  Jamoussi, B., Andersson, L., Callon, R., Dantu, R.,
              Wu, L., Doolan, P., Worster, T., Feldman, N.,
              Fredette, A., Girish, M., Gray, E., Heinanen, J.,
              Kilty, T., and A. Malis, "Constraint-Based LSP Setup
              using LDP", RFC 3212, January 2002.

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

   [RFC3472]  Ashwood-Smith, P. and L. Berger, "Generalized Multi-
              Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Signaling -
              Constraint-based Routed Label Distribution Protocol
              (CR-LDP) Extensions", RFC 3472, January 2003.

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

   [RFC3945]  Mannie, E., Ed., "Generalized Multiprotocol Label
              Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October
              2004.

   [T1.105]   "Synchronous Optical Network (SONET): Basic
              Description Including Multiplex Structure, Rates, and
              Formats", ANSI T1.105, October 2000.
























E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors)                                16

draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc3946bis-01.txt                       December 2005

Appendix 1 - Signal Type Values Extension for VC-3

   This appendix defines the following optional additional Signal
   Type value for the Signal Type field of section 2.1:

       Value         Type
       -----  ---------------------
        20     "VC-3 via AU-3 at the end"

   According to the ITU-T [G.707] recommendation a VC-3 in the TU-
   3/TUG-3/VC-4/AU-4 branch of the SDH multiplex cannot be structured
   in TUG-2s, however a VC-3 in the AU-3 branch can be. In addition,
   a VC-3 could be switched between the two branches if required.

   A VC-3 circuit could be terminated on an ingress interface of an
   LSR (e.g. forming a VC-3 forwarding adjacency). This LSR could
   then want to demultiplex this VC-3 and switch internal low order
   LSPs. For implementation reasons, this could be only possible if
   the LSR receives the VC-3 in the AU-3 branch. E.g. for an LSR not
   able to switch internally from a TU-3 branch to an AU-3 branch on
   its incoming interface before demultiplexing and then switching
   the content with its switch fabric.

   In that case it is useful to indicate that the VC-3 LSP must be
   terminated at the end in the AU-3 branch instead of the TU-3
   branch.

   This is achieved by using the "VC-3 via AU-3 at the end" signal
   type. This information can be used, for instance, by the
   penultimate LSR to switch an incoming VC-3 received in any branch
   to the AU-3 branch on the outgoing interface to the destination
   LSR.

   The "VC-3 via AU-3 at the end" signal type does not imply that the
   VC-3 must be switched via the AU-3 branch at some other places in
   the network. The VC-3 signal type just indicates that a VC-3 in
   any branch is suitable.


















E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors)                                17

draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc3946bis-01.txt                       December 2005

Annex 1 - Examples

   This annex defines examples of SONET and SDH signal coding. Their
   objective is to help the reader to understand how works the traffic
   parameter coding and not to give examples of typical SONET or SDH
   signals.

   As stated above, signal types are Elementary Signals to which
   successive concatenation, multiplication and transparency
   transforms can be applied to obtain Final Signals.

   1. A VC-4 signal is formed by the application of RCC with value
      0, NCC with value 0, NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T
      with value 0 to a VC-4 Elementary Signal.

   2. A VC-4-7v signal is formed by the application of RCC with value
      0, NCC with value 0, NVC with value 7 (virtual concatenation of
      7 components), MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to a VC-4
      Elementary Signal.

   3. A VC-4-16c signal is formed by the application of RCC with
      value 1 (standard contiguous concatenation), NCC with value 16,
      NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to a VC-4
      Elementary Signal.

   4. An STM-16 signal with Multiplex Section layer transparency is
      formed by the application of RCC with value 0, NCC with value
      0, NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with flag 2 to an
      STM-16 Elementary Signal.

   5. An STM-4 signal with Multiplex Section layer transparency is
      formed by the application of RCC with value 0, NCC with value
      0, NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with flag 2 applied
      to an STM-4 Elementary Signal.

   6. An STM-256 signal with Multiplex Section layer transparency is
      formed by the application of RCC with value 0, NCC with value
      0, NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with flag 2 applied
      to an STM-256 Elementary Signal.

   7. An STS-1 SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC with
      value 0, NCC with value 0, NVC with value 0, MT with value 1
      and T with value 0 to an STS-1 SPE Elementary Signal.

   8. An STS-3c SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC with
      value 1 (standard contiguous concatenation), NCC with value 1,
      NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to an STS-
      3c SPE Elementary Signal.

   9. An STS-48c SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC with
      value 1 (standard contiguous concatenation), NCC with value 16,
      NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to an STS-
      3c SPE Elementary Signal.


E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors)                                18

draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc3946bis-01.txt                       December 2005

   10.An STS-1-3v SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC
      with value 0, NVC with value 3 (virtual concatenation of 3
      components), MT with value 1 and T with value 0 to an STS-1 SPE
      Elementary Signal.

   11.An STS-3c-9v SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC
      with value 1, NCC with value 1, NVC with value 9 (virtual
      concatenation of 9 STS-3c), MT with value 1 and T with value 0
      to an STS-3c SPE Elementary Signal.

   12.An STS-12 signal with Section layer (full) transparency is
      formed by the application of RCC with value 0, NCC with value
      0, NVC with value 0, MT with value 1 and T with flag 1 to an
      STS-12 Elementary Signal.

   13.A 3 x STS-768c SPE signal is formed by the application of RCC
      with value 1, NCC with value 256, NVC with value 0, MT with
      value 3, and T with value 0 to an STS-3c SPE Elementary Signal.

   14.
      A 5 x VC-4-13v composed signal is formed by the application of
      RCC with value 0, NVC with value 13, MT with value 5 and T with
      value 0 to a VC-4 Elementary Signal.

   The encoding of these examples is summarized in the following
   table:

      Signal                     ST   RCC   NCC   NVC   MT   T
      --------------------------------------------------------
      VC-4                        6     0     0     0    1   0
      VC-4-7v                     6     0     0     7    1   0
      VC-4-16c                    6     1    16     0    1   0
      STM-16 MS transparent      10     0     0     0    1   2
      STM-4 MS transparent        9     0     0     0    1   2
      STM-256 MS transparent     12     0     0     0    1   2
      STS-1 SPE                   5     0     0     0    1   0
      STS-3c SPE                  6     1     1     0    1   0
      STS-48c SPE                 6     1    16     0    1   0
      STS-1-3v SPE                5     0     0     3    1   0
      STS-3c-9v SPE               6     1     1     9    1   0
      STS-12 Section transparent  9     0     0     0    1   1
      3 x STS-768c SPE            6     1   256     0    3   0
      5 x VC-4-13v                6     0     0    13    5   0

Contributors

   Contributors are listed by alphabetical order:

      Stefan Ansorge (Alcatel)
      Lorenzstrasse 10
      70435 Stuttgart, Germany
      EMail: stefan.ansorge@alcatel.de

      Peter Ashwood-Smith (Nortel)
      PO. Box 3511 Station C,

E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors)                                19

draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc3946bis-01.txt                       December 2005

      Ottawa, ON K1Y 4H7, Canada
      EMail:petera@nortelnetworks.com

      Ayan Banerjee (Calient)
      5853 Rue Ferrari
      San Jose, CA 95138, USA
      EMail: abanerjee@calient.net

      Lou Berger (Movaz)
      7926 Jones Branch Drive
      McLean, VA 22102, USA
      EMail: lberger@movaz.com

      Greg Bernstein (Ciena)
      10480 Ridgeview Court
      Cupertino, CA 94014, USA
      EMail: greg@ciena.com

      Angela Chiu (Celion)
      One Sheila Drive, Suite 2
      Tinton Falls, NJ 07724-2658
      EMail: angela.chiu@celion.com

      John Drake (Calient)
      5853 Rue Ferrari
      San Jose, CA 95138, USA
      EMail: jdrake@calient.net

      Yanhe Fan (Axiowave)
      100 Nickerson Road
      Marlborough, MA 01752, USA
      EMail: yfan@axiowave.com

      Michele Fontana (Alcatel)
      Via Trento 30,
      I-20059 Vimercate, Italy
      EMail: michele.fontana@alcatel.it

      Gert Grammel (Alcatel)
      Lorenzstrasse, 10
      70435 Stuttgart, Germany
      EMail: gert.grammel@alcatel.de

      Juergen Heiles (Siemens)
      Hofmannstr. 51
      D-81379 Munich, Germany
      EMail: juergen.heiles@siemens.com

      Suresh Katukam (Cisco)
      1450 N. McDowell Blvd,
      Petaluma, CA 94954-6515, USA
      EMail: suresh.katukam@cisco.com

      Kireeti Kompella (Juniper)

E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors)                                20

draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc3946bis-01.txt                       December 2005

      1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
      Sunnyvale, CA 94089, USA
      EMail: kireeti@juniper.net

      Jonathan P. Lang (Calient)
      25 Castilian
      Goleta, CA 93117, USA
      EMail: jplang@calient.net

      Fong Liaw (Solas Research)
      EMail: fongliaw@yahoo.com

      Zhi-Wei Lin (Lucent)
      101 Crawfords Corner Rd
      Holmdel, NJ  07733-3030, USA
      EMail: zwlin@lucent.com

      Ben Mack-Crane (Tellabs)
      EMail: ben.mack-crane@tellabs.com

      Dimitrios Pendarakis (Tellium)
      2 Crescent Place, P.O. Box 901
      Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901, USA
      EMail: dpendarakis@tellium.com

      Mike Raftelis (White Rock)
      18111 Preston Road
      Dallas, TX 75252, USA

      Bala Rajagopalan (Tellium)
      2 Crescent Place, P.O. Box 901
      Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901, USA
      EMail: braja@tellium.com

      Yakov Rekhter (Juniper)
      1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
      Sunnyvale, CA 94089, USA
      EMail: yakov@juniper.net

      Debanjan Saha (Tellium)
      2 Crescent Place, P.O. Box 901
      Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901, USA
      EMail: dsaha@tellium.com

      Vishal Sharma (Metanoia)
      335 Elan Village Lane
      San Jose, CA 95134, USA
      EMail: vsharma87@yahoo.com

      George Swallow (Cisco)
      250 Apollo Drive
      Chelmsford, MA 01824, USA
      EMail: swallow@cisco.com


E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors)                                21

draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc3946bis-01.txt                       December 2005

      Z. Bo Tang (Tellium)
      2 Crescent Place, P.O. Box 901
      Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901, USA
      EMail: btang@tellium.com

      Eve Varma (Lucent)
      101 Crawfords Corner Rd
      Holmdel, NJ  07733-3030, USA
      EMail: evarma@lucent.com

      Yangguang Xu (Lucent)
      21-2A41, 1600 Osgood Street
      North Andover, MA 01845, USA
      EMail: xuyg@lucent.com

Authors' Addresses

      Eric Mannie (Consultant)
      Avenue de la Folle Chanson, 2
      B-1050 Brussels, Belgium
      Phone:  +32 2 648-5023
      Mobile: +32 (0)495-221775

      EMail:  eric_mannie@hotmail.com

      Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel)
      Francis Wellesplein 1,
      B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
      Phone:  +32 3 240-8491

      EMail:  dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be
























E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors)                                22

draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc3946bis-01.txt                       December 2005

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

   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 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.

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 IETF's procedures with respect to
   rights in IETF 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 currently provided by the
   Internet Society.










E.Mannie & D.Papadimitriou (Editors)                                23


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.123, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/