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

Versions: (draft-ali-ccamp-te-metric-recording) 01 02 03 04 draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording

     CCAMP Working Group                                       Zafar Ali
     Internet Draft                                       George Swallow
     Intended status: Standard Track                   Clarence Filsfils
     Expires: January 13, 2014                              Matt Hartley
                                                           Cisco Systems
   
                                                            Kenji Kumaki
                                                        KDDI Corporation
   
                                                          Ruediger Kunze
                                                     Deutsche Telekom AG
                                                           July 14, 2013
   
   
          Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
           extension for recording TE Metric of a Label Switched Path
                  draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-02.txt
   
   Status of this Memo
   
   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
   
   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
   
   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."
   
   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 13, 2014.
   
   Copyright Notice
   
   Copyright (c) 2013 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
   (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.
   
   
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils, et al    Expires January 2014     [Page 1]


     Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-02.txt
   
     Abstract
   
     There are many scenarios in which Traffic Engineering (TE) metrics
     such as cost, latency and latency variation associated with a
     Forwarding Adjacency (FA) or Routing Adjacency (RA) Label Switched
     Path (LSP) are not available to the ingress and egress nodes. This
     draft provides extensions for the Resource ReserVation Protocol-
     Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for the support of the discovery of
     cost, latency and latency variation of an LSP.
   
   
     Conventions used in this document
   
     The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
     "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in
     this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119
     [RFC2119].
   
     Table of Contents
   
        Copyright Notice..................................................1
        1. Introduction...................................................3
        2. RSVP-TE Requirement............................................3
        2.1. Cost, Latency and Latency Variation Collection Indication....4
        2.2. Cost, Latency and Latency Variation Collection...............4
        2.3. Cost, Latency and Latency Variation Update...................4
        3. RSVP-TE signaling extensions...................................4
        3.1. Cost, Latency and Latency Variation Collection Flags.........4
        3.2. Cost Subobject...............................................5
        3.3. Latency Subobject............................................6
        3.4. Latency Variation Subobject..................................7
        3.5. Signaling Procedures.........................................8
        4. Security Considerations........................................9
        5. IANA Considerations............................................9
        5.1. RSVP Attribute Bit Flags.....................................9
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils         Expires January 2014     [Page 2]


     Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-02.txt
   
        5.2. New RSVP error sub-code.....................................10
        6. Acknowledgments...............................................11
        7. References....................................................11
        7.1. Normative References........................................11
        7.2. Informative References......................................12
   
     1. Introduction
   
        There are many scenarios in packet and optical networks where
        the route information of an LSP may not be provided to the
        ingress node for confidentiality reasons and/or the ingress node
        may not run the same routing instance as the intermediate nodes
        traversed by the path. In such scenarios, the ingress node
        cannot determine the cost, latency and latency variation
        properties of the LSP's route. Similarly, in Generalized Multi-
        Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) networks signaling
        bidirectional LSP, the egress node cannot determine the cost,
        latency and latency variation properties of the LSP route.  A
        multi-domain or multi-layer network is an example of such
        networks. Similarly, a GMPLS User-Network Interface (UNI)
        [RFC4208] is also an example of such networks.
   
        In certain networks, such as financial information networks,
        network performance information (e.g. latency, latency
        variation) is becoming as critical to data path selection as
        other metrics [DRAFT-OSPF-TE-METRIC], [DRAFT-ISIS-TE-METRIC]. If
        cost, latency or latency variation associated with an FA or an
        RA LSP is not available to the ingress or egress node, it cannot
        be advertised as an attribute of the FA or RA. One possible way
        to address this issue is to configure cost, latency and latency
        variation values manually. However, in the event of an LSP being
        rerouted (e.g. due to re-optimization), such configuration
        information may become invalid. Consequently, in case where that
        an LSP is advertised as a TE-Link, the ingress and/or egress
        nodes cannot provide the correct latency, latency variation and
        cost attribute associated with the TE-Link automatically.
   
        In summary, there is a requirement for the ingress and egress
        nodes to learn the cost, latency and latency variation
        attributes of an FA or RA LSP. This draft provides extensions to
        the Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
        for the support of the automatic discovery of these attributes.
   
     2. RSVP-TE Requirement
   
        This section outlines RSVP-TE requirements for the support of
        the automatic discovery of cost, latency and latency variation
        attributes of an LSP. These requirements are very similar to the
        requirement of discovering the Shared Risk Link Groups (SRLGs)
        associated with the route taken by an LSP [DRAFT-SRLG-
        RECORDING].
   
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils         Expires January 2014     [Page 3]


     Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-02.txt
   
     2.1. Cost, Latency and Latency Variation Collection Indication
   
           The ingress node of the LSP must be capable of indicating
        whether the cost, latency and latency variation attributes of
        the LSP should be collected during the signaling procedure of
        setting up the LSP. No cost, latency or latency variation
        information is collected without an explicit request being made
        by the ingress node.
   
     2.2. Cost, Latency and Latency Variation Collection
   
           If requested, cost, latency and latency variation is
        collected during the setup of an LSP. The endpoints of the LSP
        may use the collected information for routing, flooding and TE
        link configuration and other purposes.
   
     2.3. Cost, Latency and Latency Variation Update
   
           When the cost, latency and latency variation property of a TE
        link along the route of a LSP for which that property was
        collected changes, e.g., if the administrator changes cost of a
        TE link, the node where the change occurred needs to be capable
        of updating the cost, latency and latency variation information
        of the path and signaling this to the end-points. Similarly, if
        a path segment of the LSP is rerouted, the endpoints of the re-
        routed segment need to be capable of updating the cost, latency
        and latency variation information of the path. Any node, which
        adds cost, latency or latency variation information to an LSP
        during initial setup, needs to signal changes to these values to
        both endpoints.
   
     3. RSVP-TE signaling extensions
   
     3.1. Cost, Latency and Latency Variation Collection Flags
   
        Three Attribute flags are defined in the Attribute Flags TLV,
        which can be set and carried in either the LSP_ATTRIBUTES or
        LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Objects.
   
        - Cost Collection flag (to be assigned by IANA)
   
        - Latency Collection flag (to be assigned by IANA)
   
        - Latency Variation Collection flag (to be assigned by IANA)
   
        These flags are meaningful in a Path message. If the Cost
        Collection flag is set to 1, the transit nodes SHOULD report the
        cost information in the Record Route Objects (RRO) of both the
        Path and Resv messages.
   
   
   
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils         Expires January 2014     [Page 4]


     Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-02.txt
   
        If the Cost Collection flag is set to 1, the transit nodes
        SHOULD report latency variation information in the Record Route
        Objects (RRO) of both the Path and Resv messages.
   
        If the Latency Collection flag is set to 1, the transit nodes
        SHOULD report latency variation information in the Record Route
        Objects (RRO) of both the Path and Resv messages.
   
        If the Latency Variation Collection flag is set to 1, the
        transit nodes SHOULD report latency variation information in the
        Record Route Objects (RRO) of both the Path and Resv messages.
   
        The procedure for the processing the Attribute Flags TLV follows
        [RFC5420].
   
     3.2. Cost Subobject
   
        The cost subobject is defined for the RRO to record the cost
        information of the LSP. Its format is similar to the RRO
        subobjects (ROUTE_RECORD sub-object) defined in [RFC3209].
   
   
        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |     Type      |    Length     |    Reserved (must be zero)    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                       Downstream Cost                         |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                        Upstream Cost                          |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   
   
           Type: TBA1 - Cost subobject (to be assigned by IANA).
   
           Length: The Length value is set to 8 or 12 depending on the
           presence of Upstream Cost information.
   
           Reserved: This field is reserved for future use. It MUST be
           set to 0 when sent and MUST be ignored when received.
   
           Downstream Cost: Cost of the local link along the route of
           the LSP in the direction of the tail-end node, encoded as a
           32-bit integer. Based on the policy at the recording node,
           the cost value can be set to the Interior Gateway Protocol
           (IGP) metric or TE metric of the link in question. This
           approach has been taken to avoid defining a flag for each
           cost type in the Attribute-Flags TLV. It is assumed that,
           based on policy, all nodes report the same cost-type and that
   
   
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils         Expires January 2014     [Page 5]


     Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-02.txt
   
           the ingress and egress nodes know the cost type reported in
           the RRO.
   
           Upstream Cost: Cost of the local link along the route of the
           LSP in the direction of the head-end node, encoded as a 32-
           bit integer. Based on the policy at the recording node, the
           cost value can be set to the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP)
           metric or TE metric of the link in question. This approach
           has been taken to avoid defining a flag for each cost type in
           the Attribute-Flags TLV. It is assumed that, based on policy,
           all nodes report the same cost-type and that the ingress and
           egress nodes know the cost type reported in the RRO.
   
     3.3. Latency Subobject
   
        The Latency subobject is defined for RRO to record the latency
        information of the LSP. Its format is similar the RRO subobjects
        defined in [RFC3209].
   
        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |   Type        |   Length      |    Reserved (must be zero)    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |A|  Reserved   |               Downstream Delay                |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |A|  Reserved   |                Upstream Delay                 |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   
   
           Type: TBA2 -  Latency subobject (to be assigned by IANA).
   
           Length: 8 or 12 depending on the presence of Upstream Cost
           information.
   
           A-bit: These fields represent the Anomalous (A) bit
           associated with the Downstream and Upstream Delay
           respectively, as defined in [DRAFT-OSPF-TE-METRIC].
   
           Reserved: These fields are reserved for future use. They MUST
           be set to 0 when sent and MUST be ignored when received.
   
           Downstream Delay: Delay of the local link along the route of
           the LSP in the direction of the tail-end node, encoded as 24-
           bit integer.  When set to 0, it has not been measured. When
           set to the maximum value 16,777,215 (16.777215 sec), the
           delay is at least that value and may be larger.
   
           Upstream Delay: Delay of the local link along the route of
           the LSP in the direction of the head-end node, encoded as 24-
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils         Expires January 2014     [Page 6]


     Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-02.txt
   
           bit integer. When set to 0, it has not been measured. When
           set to the maximum value 16,777,215 (16.777215 sec), the
           delay is at least that value and may be larger.
   
     3.4. Latency Variation Subobject
   
        The Latency Variation subobject is defined for RRO to record the
        Latency Variation information of the LSP. Its format is similar
        to the RRO subobjects defined in [RFC3209].
   
        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |   Type        |   Length      |    Reserved (must be zero)    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |A|  Reserved   |          Downstream Delay Variation           |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |A|  Reserved   |           Upstream Delay Variation            |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   
   
           Type: TBA3 - Latency Variation subobject (to be assigned by
           IANA).
   
           Length: 8 or 12 depending on the presence of Upstream Latency
           Variation information.
   
           A-bit: These fields represent the Anomalous (A) bit
           associated with the Downstream and Upstream Delay
           respectively, as defined in [DRAFT-OSPF-TE-METRIC].
   
           Reserved: These fields are reserved for future use. It MUST
           be set to 0 when sent and MUST be ignored when received.
   
           Downstream Delay Variation: Delay Variation of the local link
           along the route of the LSP in the direction of the tail-end
           node, encoded as 24-bit integer.  When set to 0, it has not
           been measured. When set to the maximum value 16,777,215
           (16.777215 sec), the delay is at least that value and may be
           larger.
   
           Upstream Delay Variation: Delay Variation of the local link
           along the route of the LSP in the direction of the head-end
           node, encoded as 24-bit integer. When set to 0, it has not
           been measured. When set to the maximum value 16,777,215
           (16.777215 sec), the delay is at least that value and may be
           larger.
   
   
   
   
   
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils         Expires January 2014     [Page 7]


     Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-02.txt
   
     3.5. Signaling Procedures
   
        Typically, the ingress node learns the route of an LSP by adding
        a RRO in the Path message. If an ingress node also desires cost,
        latency and/or latency variation recording, it sets the
        appropriate flag(s) in the Attribute Flags TLV of the
        LSP_ATTRIBUTES (if recording is desired but not mandatory) or
        LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES (if recording in mandatory) Object.
        None, all or any of the Cost Collection, Latency Collection or
        Latency Variation Collection flags may be set in the Attribute
        Flags TLV of the LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES
        Object.  The rules for processing the LSP_ATTRIBUTES and
        LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Objects and RRO are not changed. The
        corresponding sub-objects MUST be included in the RRO, with the
        Downstream (only) information filled in.
   
        When a node receives a Path message which carries an
        LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object and the Cost, Latency and/or
        Latency Variation Collection Flag(s) is (are) set, if local
        policy disallows providing the requested information to the
        endpoints, the node MUST return a Path Error message with error
        code "Policy Control Failure (2)" and one of the following error
        subcodes:
   
        . "Cost Recoding Rejected" (value to be assigned by IANA,
          suggested value 105) if Cost Collection Flag is set.
   
        . "Latency Recording Rejected" (value to be assigned by IANA,
          suggested value 106) if Latency Collection Flag is set.
   
        . "Latency Variation Recording Rejected" (value to be assigned
          by IANA, suggested value 107) if Latency Variation Collection
          Flag is set.
   
        When a node receives a Path message which carries an
        LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object and the Cost, Latency and/or Latency
        Variation Collection Flag(s) is (are) set, if local policy
        disallows providing the requested information to the endpoints,
        the Path message SHOULD NOT rejected due to Metric recording
        restriction and the Path message is forwarded without the
        appropriate sub-object(s) in the Path RRO.
   
        If local policy permits the recording of the requested
        information, the processing node SHOULD add the requested
        subobject(s) with the cost, latency and/or latency variation
        metric value(s) associated with the local hop to the Path RRO.
        If the LSP being setup is bidirectional, both Downstream and
        Upstream information SHOULD be included.  If the LSP is
        unidirectional, only Downstream information SHOULD be included.
   
        Following the steps described above, the intermediate nodes of
        the LSP provide the requested metric value(s) associated with
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils         Expires January 2014     [Page 8]


     Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-02.txt
   
        the local hop in the Path RRO. When the egress node receives the
        Path message, it can calculate the end-to-end cost, latency
        and/or latency variation properties of the LSP.
   
        Before the Resv message is sent to the upstream node, the egress
        node adds the requested subobject(s) with the downstream cost,
        latency and/or latency variation metric value(s) associated with
        the local hop to the Resv RRO in a similar manner to that
        specified above for the addition of Path RRO sub-objects by
        transit nodes.
   
        Similarly, the intermediate nodes of the LSP provide the
        requested metric value(s) associated with the local hop in the
        Resv RRO. When the ingress node receives the Resv message, it can
        calculate the end-to-end cost, latency and/or latency variation
        properties of the LSP.
   
        Typically, cost and latency are additive metrics, but latency
        variation is not an additive metric. The means by which the
        ingress and egress nodes compute the end-to-end cost, latency
        and latency variation metric from information recorded in the
        RRO is beyond the scope of this document.
   
        Based on the local policy, the ingress and egress nodes can
        advertise the calculated end-to-end cost, latency and/or latency
        variation properties of the FA or RA LSP in TE link
        advertisement to the routing instance based on the procedure
        described in [DRAFT-OSPF-TE-METRIC], [DRAFT-ISIS-TE-METRIC].
   
        Based on the local policy, a transit node (e.g. the edge node of
        a domain) may edit a Path or Resv RRO to remove route
        information (e.g. node or interface identifier information)
        before forwarding it. A node that does this SHOULD summarize the
        cost, latency and latency variation data removed as a single
        value for each for the loose hop that is summarized by the
        transit node. How a transit node calculates the cost, latency o
        and/or latency variation metric for the segment summarized by
        the transit node is beyond the scope of this document.
   
     4. Security Considerations
   
        This document does not introduce any additional security issues
        above those identified in [RFC5920], [RFC5420], [RFC2205],
        [RFC3209], and [RFC3473].
   
     5. IANA Considerations
   
     5.1. RSVP Attribute Bit Flags
   
           The IANA has created a registry and manages the space of
        attributes bit flags of Attribute Flags TLV as described in
        section 11.3 of [RFC5420]. It is requested that the IANA makes
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils         Expires January 2014     [Page 9]


     Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-02.txt
   
        assignments from the Attribute Bit Flags defined in this
        document.
   
           This document introduces the following three new Attribute
        Bit Flag:
   
              - Bit number: TBD (recommended bit position 11)
   
              - Defining RFC: this I-D
   
              - Name of bit: Cost Collection Flag
   
   
   
              - Bit number: TBD (recommended bit position 12)
   
              - Defining RFC: this I-D
   
              - Name of bit: Latency Collection Flag
   
   
   
              - Bit number: TBD (recommended bit position 13)
   
              - Defining RFC: this I-D
   
              - Name of bit: Latency Variation Flag
   
   
   
        5.2. ROUTE_RECORD subobject
   
           This document introduces the following three new RRO
        subobject:
   
                     Type       Name                        Reference
   
                     ---------  ----------------------      ---------
   
                     TBD (35)   Cost subobject              This I-D
   
                     TBD (36)   Latency subobject           This I-D
   
                     TBD (37)   Latency Variation subobject This I-D
   
     5.2. New RSVP error sub-code
   
        For Error Code = 2 "Policy Control Failure" (see [RFC2205]) the
        following sub-code is defined.
   
           Sub-code                              Value
           --------                              -----
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils         Expires January 2014     [Page 10]


     Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-02.txt
   
   
           Cost Recoding Rejected                To be assigned by IANA.
                                                 Suggested Value: 105.
   
           Latency Recoding Rejected             To be assigned by IANA.
                                                 Suggested Value: 106.
   
           Latency Variation Recoding Rejected      To be assigned by
     IANA.
                                                 Suggested Value: 107.
   
     6. Acknowledgments
   
        Authors would like to thank Ori Gerstel, Gabriele Maria
        Galimberti, Luyuan Fang and Walid Wakim for their review
        comments.
   
     7. References
   
     7.1. Normative References
   
        [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
                  Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
   
        [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.
   
        [RFC5420] Farrel, A., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, JP., and
                  A. Ayyangarps, "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP
                  Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol
                  Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 5420, February
                  2009.
   
        [DRAFT-OSPF-TE-METRIC] S. Giacalone, D. Ward, J. Drake, A.
                  Atlas, S. Previdi, "OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE)
                  Metric Extensions", draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-
                  extensions, work in progress.
   
        [DRAFT-ISIS-TE-METRIC] S. Previdi, S. Giacalone, D. Ward, J.
                  Drake, A. Atlas, C. Filsfils, "IS-IS Traffic
                  Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions", draft-ietf-isis-
                  te-metric-extensions, work in progress.
   
        [DRAFT-SRLG-RECORDING] F. Zhang, D. Li, O. Gonzalez de Dios, C.
                  Margaria,, "RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting SRLG
                  Information", draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-
                  collect.txt, work in progress.
   
   
   
   
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils         Expires January 2014     [Page 11]


     Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-ccamp-te-metric-recording-02.txt
   
     7.2. Informative References
   
        [RFC4208] Swallow, G., Drake, J., Ishimatsu, H., and Y. Rekhter,
                  "Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
                  User-Network Interface (UNI): Resource ReserVation
                  Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Support for the
                  Overlay Model", RFC 4208, October 2005.
   
        [RFC2209] Braden, R. and L. Zhang, "Resource ReSerVation
                  Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Message Processing
                  Rules", RFC 2209, September 1997.
   
        [RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
                  Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
   
   
   
     Authors' Addresses
   
   
        Zafar Ali
        Cisco Systems, Inc.
        Email: zali@cisco.com
   
        George Swallow
        Cisco Systems, Inc.
        swallow@cisco.com
   
        Clarence Filsfils
        Cisco Systems, Inc.
        cfilsfil@cisco.com
   
        Matt Hartley
        Cisco Systems
        Email: mhartley@cisco.com
   
        Kenji Kumaki
        KDDI Corporation
        Email: ke-kumaki@kddi.com
   
        Rudiger Kunze
        Deutsche Telekom AG
        Ruediger.Kunze@telekom.de
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils         Expires January 2014     [Page 12]
   

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/