[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]
Versions: (draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-node-cap)
00 01 02 03 04 05 RFC 5073
Network Working Group J.P. Vasseur (Editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
IETF Internet Draft J.L. Le Roux (Editor)
France Telecom
Proposed Status: Standard Track S. Yasukawa
Expires: December 2006 NTT
S. Previdi
P. Psenak
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Paul Mabey
Comcast
June 2006
Routing extensions for discovery of Traffic Engineering Node
Capabilities
draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-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.
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al. [Page 1]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-01.txt June 2006
Abstract
It is highly desired in several cases, to take into account Traffic
Engineering (TE) node capabilities during TE LSP path selection, such
as for instance the capability to act as a branch LSR of a P2MP LSP.
This requires advertising these capabilities within the IGP.
For that purpose, this document specifies OSPF and IS-IS traffic
engineering extensions for the advertisement of control plane and
data plane traffic engineering node capabilities.
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.
Table of Contents
1. Terminology.................................................3
2. Introduction................................................3
3. TE Node Capability Descriptor...............................4
3.1. Description.................................................4
3.2. Required Information........................................4
4. TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV formats...................5
4.1. OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV format...............5
4.1.1. The DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV..................................5
4.1.2. The CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV...............................6
4.2. IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV format..............7
4.2.1. DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV......................................8
4.2.2. CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV...................................8
5. Elements of procedure.......................................9
5.1. OSPF........................................................9
5.2. IS-IS......................................................10
6. Backward compatibility.....................................10
7. Security Considerations....................................10
8. IANA considerations........................................10
8.1. OSPF TLVs..................................................10
8.2. ISIS TLVs..................................................11
8.3. Capability bits............................................11
9. Acknowledgments............................................12
10. References.................................................12
10.1. Normative references.......................................12
10.2. Informative References.....................................13
11. Editors Address............................................13
12. Contributors address.......................................14
13. Intellectual Property Statement............................14
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al. [Page 2]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-01.txt June 2006
1. Terminology
This document uses terminologies defined in [RFC3031], [RFC3209] and
[RFC4461].
2. Introduction
MPLS Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) routing ([IS-IS-TE], [OSPF-TE])
relies on extensions to link state IGP routing protocols ([OSPF-v2],
[IS-IS]) in order to advertise Traffic Engineering (TE) link
information used for constraint based routing. Further Generalized
MPLS (GMPLS) related routing extensions are defined in [IS-IS-G] and
[OSPF-G].
It is desired to complement these routing extensions in order to
advertise TE node capabilities, in addition to TE link information.
These TE node capabilities will be taken into account as constraints
during path selection.
Indeed, it is useful to advertise data plane TE node capabilities,
such as, for instance the capability for an LSR to be a branch LSR or
a bud-LSR of a P2MP LSP. These capabilities can then be taken into
account as constraints when computing TE LSP paths.
It is also useful to advertise control plane TE node capabilities
such as for instance the capability to support GMPLS signaling for a
packet LSR, or the capability to support P2MP (Point to Multipoint)
TE LSP signaling. This allows selecting a path that avoids nodes
that do not support a given signaling feature, or triggering a
mechanism to support such nodes. Hence this facilitates backward
compatibility.
For that purpose, this document specifies IGP (OSPF and IS-IS)
traffic engineering node capability TLVs in order to advertise data
plane and control plane capabilities of a node.
A new TLV is defined for ISIS and OSPF: the TE Node Capability
Descriptor TLV, to be carried within:
- The ISIS Capability TLV ([ISIS-CAP]) for ISIS
- The Router Information LSA ([OSPF-CAP]) for OSPF.
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al. [Page 3]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-01.txt June 2006
3. TE Node Capability Descriptor
3.1. Description
LSRs in a network may have distinct control plane and data plane
Traffic Engineering capabilities. The TE Node Capability Descriptor
information defined in this document describes data and control plane
capabilities of an LSR. Such information can be used for instance
during path computation so as to avoid nodes that do not support a
given TE feature either in the control or data plane or to trigger
procedure to handle these nodes along the path (e.g trigger LSP
hierarchy to support a legacy transit LSR on a P2MP LSP (see [RSVP-
P2MP]). In some cases, this may also be useful to ensure backward
compatibility.
3.2. Required Information
The TE Node Capability Descriptor contains two variable length sets
of bit flags:
- The Data Plane Capabilities: This a variable length
set of bit flags where each bit corresponds to a given TE data plane
capability.
- The Control Plane Capabilities: This a variable length
set of bit flags where each bit corresponds to a given TE control
plane capability.
Two Data Plane Capabilities are currently defined:
- B bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR can act
as a branch node on a P2MP LSP (see [P2MP-REQ]);
- E bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR can act
as a bud LSR on a P2MP LSP, i.e. an LSR that is both
transit and egress (see [P2MP-REQ]).
Three Control Plane Capabilities are currently defined:
- M bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR supports
MPLS-TE signaling ([RSVP-TE]);
- G bit: when set this flag indicates that the LSR supports
GMPLS signaling ([RSVP-G]);
- P bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR supports
P2MP MPLS-TE signaling ([RSVP-P2MP]).
Note that new capability bits may be added in the future if required.
Also more complex capabilities encoded within sub-TLVs may be added
in the future if required.
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al. [Page 4]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-01.txt June 2006
4. TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV formats
4.1. OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV format
The OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is made of various non-
ordered sub-TLVs.
The format of the OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV and its sub-
TLVs is the same as the TLV format used by the Traffic Engineering
Extensions to OSPF [OSPF-TE]. That is, the TLV is composed of 2
octets for the type, 2 octets specifying the TLV length and a value
field. The TLV is padded to four-octet alignment; padding is not
included in the length field (so a three octet value would have a
length of three, but the total size of the TLV would be eight
octets). Sub-TLVs are also 32-bit aligned. Unrecognized types are
ignored. All types between 32768 and 65535 are reserved for vendor-
specific extensions. All other undefined type codes are reserved for
future assignment by IANA.
The OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV has the following format:
TYPE To be defined by IANA
LENGHT Variable
VALUE This comprises one or more sub-TLVs
Currently two sub-TLVs are defined:
Sub-TLV type Length Name
1 variable DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV
2 variable CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV
Any unrecognized sub-TLV MUST be silently ignored.
More sub-TLVs could be added in the future to handle new
capabilities.
The OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is carried within an OSPF
Router Information LSA which is defined in [OSPF-CAP].
4.1.1. The DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV
The DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV is a series of bit flags, where each bit
correspond to a data plane TE node capability, and has a variable
length.
The format of the DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV is as follows:
TYPE To be assigned by IANA (suggested value =1)
LENGTH It is set to N x 4 octets. N starts
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al. [Page 5]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-01.txt June 2006
from 1 and can be increased when there is a need.
Each 4 octets are referred to as a capability flag.
VALUE This comprises one or more capability flags.
For each 4 octets, the bits are indexed from the most
significant to the least significant, where each bit
represents one data plane TE node capability. When
the first 32 capabilities are defined, a new
capability flag will be used to accommodate the next
capability. These bits are under IANA control.
The following bits are defined the first capability flag:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|B|E| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Bit Capabilities
0 B bit: P2MP Branch Node capability: When set this indicates
that the LSR can act as a branch node on a P2MP LSP
[P2MP-REQ];
1 E bit: P2MP Bud-LSR capability: When set, this indicates
that the LSR can act as a bud LSR on a P2MP LSP, i.e. an
LSR that is both transit and egress [P2MP-REQ];
The values for the B and E bits are to be assigned by IANA.
2-31 Reserved for future assignments by IANA.
4.1.2. The CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV
The CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV is a series of bit flags, where each
bit correspond to a control plane TE node capability, and has a
variable length.
The format of the CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV is as follows:
TYPE To be assigned by IANA (suggested value = 2)
LENGHT It is set to N x 4 octets. N starts
from 1 and can be increased when there is a need.
Each 4 octets are referred to as a capability flag.
VALUE This comprises one or more capability flags.
For each 4 octets, the bits are indexed from the most
significant to the least significant, where each bit
represents one control plane TE node capability. When
the first 32 capabilities are defined, a new
capability flag will be used to accommodate the next
capability. These bits are under IANA control.
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al. [Page 6]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-01.txt June 2006
The following bits are defined in the first capability:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|M|G|P| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Bit Capabilities
0 M bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports
MPLS-TE signaling ([RSVP-TE]).
1 G bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports
GMPLS signaling ([RSVP-G]).
2 P bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports
P2MP MPLS-TE signaling ([RSVP-P2MP]).
3-31 Reserved for future assignments by IANA
The values for the M, G and P bits are to be assigned by IANA.
4.2. IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV format
The IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is made of various non
ordered sub-TLVs.
The format of the IS-IS TE Node Capability TLV and its sub-TLVs is
the same as the TLV format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions
to IS-IS [IS-IS-TE]. That is, the TLV is composed of 1 octet for the
type, 1 octet specifying the TLV length and a value field.
The IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV has the following format:
TYPE: To be assigned by IANA
LENGTH: Variable, from 3 to 255
VALUE: set of one or more sub-TLVs
Currently two sub-TLVs are defined:
Sub-TLV type Length Name
1 variable DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV
2 variable CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV
Any unrecognized sub-TLV MUST be silently ignored. More sub-TLVs
could be added in the future to handle new capabilities.
The IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is carried within an IS-
IS CAPABILITY TLV which is defined in [ISIS-CAP].
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al. [Page 7]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-01.txt June 2006
4.2.1. DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV
The DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV is a series of bit flags, where each bit
correspond to a data plane TE node capability, and has a variable
length. These bits are under IANA control.
The DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV has the following format:
TYPE: To be assigned by IANA (Suggested value =1)
LENGTH: It is set to N. N starts from 1 and can be increased when
there is a need. Each octet is referred to as a
capability flag.
VALUE: This comprises one or more data plane TE node capability
flags.
The following bits are defined in the first capability flag:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|B|E| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
B bit: P2MP Branch node capability: When set this indicates
that the LSR can act as a branch node on a P2MP LSP
([P2MP-REQ]).
E bit: P2MP bud-LSR capability: When set, this indicates
that the LSR can act as a bud LSR on a P2MP LSP, i.e. an
LSR that is both transit and egress ([P2MP-REQ]).
Reserved bits are for future assignment by IANA
The values for the B and E bits are to be assigned by IANA.
4.2.2. CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV
The CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV is a series of bit flags, where each
bit correspond to a control plane TE node capability, and has a
variable length. These bits are under IANA control.
The CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV has the following format:
TYPE: To be assigned by IANA (suggested value = 2)
LENGTH: It is set to N. N starts from 1 and can be increased
when there is a need. Each octet is referred to as a
capability flag.
VALUE: This comprises one or more control plane TE node capability
flags.
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al. [Page 8]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-01.txt June 2006
The following bits defined in the first capability flag:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|M|G|P|Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
-M bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports MPLS-TE
signaling ([RSVP-TE]).
-G bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports GMPLS signaling
([RSVP-G]).
-P bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports P2MP MPLS-TE
signaling ([RSVP-P2MP]).
Reserved bits are for future assignment by IANA.
The values for the M, G and P bits are to be assigned by IANA.
5. Elements of procedure
5.1. OSPF
The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is advertised, within an OSPFv2
Router Information LSA (Opaque type of 4 and Opaque ID of 0)
or OSPFv3 Router information LSA (function code of 12) which are
defined in [OSPF-CAP]. As such, elements of procedure are inherited
from those defined in [OSPF-CAP].
The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV advertises capabilities that
may be taken into account as constraints during path selection. Hence
its flooding scope is area-local, and it MUST be carried within
OSPFv2 type 10 Router Information LSA (as defined in [RFC2370]) or an
OSPFv3 Router Information LSA with the S1 bit set and the S2 bit
cleared (as defined in [OSPFv3]).
A router MUST originate a new OSPF router information LSA whenever
the content of any of the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV changes
or whenever required by the regular OSPF procedure (LSA refresh
(every LSRefreshTime)).
The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is OPTIONAL and must at most
appear once in an OSPF Router Information LSA or ISIS Router
Capability TLV.
When an OSPF LSA or ISIS LSP does not contain any TE Node capability
Descriptor TLV, this means that the TE Capabilities of that LSR are
unknown.
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al. [Page 9]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-01.txt June 2006
Note that a change in any of these capabilities MAY trigger CSPF
computation, but MUST not trigger normal SPF computation.
Note also that TE node capabilities are expected to be fairly static.
5.2. IS-IS
The TE Node Capability TLV is carried within an IS-IS CAPABILITY TLV
defined in [IS-IS-CAP]. As such, elements of procedure are inherited
from those defined in [IS-IS-CAP].
The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV advertises capabilities that
may be taken into account as constraints during path selection. Hence
its flooding is area-local, and MUST be carried within an IS-IS
CAPABILITY TLV having the S flag cleared.
An IS-IS router MUST originate a new IS-IS LSP whenever the content
of any of the TE Node Capability TLV changes or whenever required by
the regular IS-IS procedure (LSP refresh).
The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is OPTIONAL and must at most
appear once in an OSPF Router Information LSA or ISIS Router
Capability TLV.
When a IS-IS LSP does not contain any TE Node capability Descriptor
TLV, this means that the TE Capabilities of that LSR are unknown.
Note that a change in any of these capabilities MAY trigger CSPF
computation, but MUST not trigger normal SPF computation.
Note also that TE node capabilities are expected to be fairly static.
6. Backward compatibility
The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLVs defined in this document do
not introduce any interoperability issue. For OSPF, a router not
supporting the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV MUST just silently
ignore the TLV as specified in [OSPF-CAP]. For IS-IS a router not
supporting the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV MUST just silently
ignore the TLV as specified in [IS-IS-CAP].
7. Security Considerations
No new security issues are raised in this document.
8. IANA considerations
8.1. OSPF TLVs
IANA is in charge of the assignment of TLV code points for the Router
Information LSA defined in [OSPF-CAP].
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al. [Page 10]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-01.txt June 2006
IANA will assign a new codepoint for the TE Node Capability
Descriptor TLV defined in this document and carried within the Router
Information LSA.
IANA will be in charge of the assignment of sub-TLV code points for
the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV defined in this document.
Two sub-TLVs types are defined for this TLV and should be assigned by
IANA:
-CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV (suggested value =1)
-DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV (suggested value =2)
8.2. ISIS TLVs
IANA is in charge of the assignment of sub-TLV code points for the
ISIS CAPABILITY TLV defined in [ISIS-CAP].
IANA will assign a new codepoint for the TE Node Capability
Descriptor TLV defined in this document, and carried within the ISIS
CAPABILITY TLV.
IANA will be in charge of the assignment of sub-TLV code points for
the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV defined in this document.
Two sub-TLVs types are defined for this TLV and should be assigned by
IANA:
-CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV (suggested value =1)
-DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV (suggested value =2)
8.3. Capability bits
IANA is requested to manage the space of control plane and data plane
capability bit flags carried within the OSPF and ISIS TE Node
Capability Descriptor TLVs, numbering them in the usual IETF notation
starting at zero and continuing at least through 31.
New bit numbers may be allocated only by an IETF Consensus action.
Each bit should be tracked with the following qualities:
- Bit number
- Defining RFC
- Name of bit
Currently two capabilies are defined in the data plane capability
flags and must be assigned by IANA. Here are the suggested values:
-0x01: P2MP Branch LSR capability
-0x02: P2MP Bud LSR capability
Currently three capabilities are defined in the control plane
capability flags and must be assigned by IANA. Here are the suggested
values:
-0x01: MPLS-TE support
-0x02: GMPLS support
-0x04: P2MP RSVP-TE support
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al. [Page 11]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-01.txt June 2006
9. Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Benoit Fondeviole, Adrian Farrel, Dimitri
Papadimitriou, Acee Lindem and David Ward for their useful comments
and suggestions.
We would also like to thank authors of [LSP-ATTRIBUTE] and [OSPF-CAP]
from which some text of this document has been inspired.
10. References
10.1. Normative references
[RFC] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to indicate
requirements levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3667] Bradner, S., "IETF Rights in Contributions", BCP 78, RFC
3667, February 2004.
[BCP79] Bradner, S., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
Technology", RFC 3979, March 2005.
[OSPF-v2] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998.
[OSPF-v3] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., and J. Moy, "OSPF for IPv6",
RFC 2740, December 1999.
[RFC2370] Coltun, R., "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 2370,
July 1998.
[IS-IS] "Intermediate System to Intermediate System Intra-Domain
Routing Exchange Protocol " ISO 10589.
[IS-IS-IP] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990.
[OSPF-TE] Katz, D., Yeung, D., Kompella, K., "Traffic Engineering
Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September 2003.
[IS-IS-TE] Li, T., Smit, H., "IS-IS extensions for Traffic
Engineering", RFC 3784, June 2004.
[OSPF-CAP] Lindem, A., Shen, N., Aggarwal, R., Shaffer, S., Vasseur,
J.P., "Extensions to OSPF for advertising Optional Router
Capabilities", draft-ietf-ospf-cap, work in progress.
[IS-IS-CAP] Vasseur, J.P. et al., "IS-IS extensions for advertising
router information", draft-ietf-isis-caps, work in progress.
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al. [Page 12]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-01.txt June 2006
10.2. Informative References
[RSVP-TE] Awduche, D., et. al., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RSVP-G] Berger, L, et. al., "GMPLS Signaling RSVP-TE extensions",
RFC 3473, January 2003.
[GMPLS-RTG] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "Routing Extensions in Support
of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching", RFC4202, October
2005.
[OSPF-G] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "OSPF extensions in support of
Generalized Multi-protocol Label Switching", RFC4203, October 2005.
[IS-IS-G] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "IS-IS extensions in support of
Generalized Multi-protocol Label Switching", RFC4205, October 2005.
[P2MP-REQ] Yasukawa, S., et. al., "Signaling Requirements for Point
to Multipoint Traffic Engineered MPLS LSPs", RFC4461, April 2006.
[RSVP-P2MP] Aggarwal, Papadimitriou, Yasukawa, et. al. "Extensions to
RSVP-TE for point-to-multipoint TE LSPs", draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-
p2mp, work in progress.
[LSP-ATTRIBUTE] Farrel, A., and al., "Encoding of attributes for MPLS
LSPs establishment Using RSVP-TE", RFC4420, February 2006.
11. Editors Address
Jean-Philippe Vasseur
Cisco Systems, Inc.
1414 Massachusetts Avenue
Boxborough , MA - 01719
USA
Email: jpv@cisco.com
Jean-Louis Le Roux
France Telecom
2, avenue Pierre-Marzin
22307 Lannion Cedex
FRANCE
Email: jeanlouis.leroux@francetelecom.com
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al. [Page 13]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-01.txt June 2006
12. Contributors address
Seisho Yasukawa
NTT
9-11, Midori-Cho 3-Chome
Tokyo, 180-8585
JAPAN
Email: yasukawa.seisho@lab.ntt.co.jp
Stefano Previdi
Cisco Systems, Inc
Via Del Serafico 200
Roma, 00142
Italy
Email: sprevidi@cisco.com
Peter Psenak
Cisco Systems, Inc
Pegasus Park DE Kleetlaan 6A
Diegmen, 1831
BELGIUM
Email: ppsenak@cisco.com
Paul Mabbey
Comcast
USA
Email:
13. Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al. [Page 14]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-01.txt June 2006
Disclaimer of Validity
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.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). 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.
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al. [Page 15]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/