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

Versions: 00 01

                                                    Francois Le Faucheur
                                                        Thomas D. Nadeau
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.

                                                             Angela Chiu
                                                         Celion Networks

                                                        William Townsend
                                                          Tenor Networks

                                                          Darek Skalecki
                                                         Nortel Networks



IETF Internet Draft
Expires: August, 2001
Document: draft-ietf-mpls-diff-te-ext-01.txt         February 2001


                    Extensions to RSVP-TE and CR-LDP
        for support of Diff-Serv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering


Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 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.

   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, reference [BCP14].


Abstract

   A companion document [DIFF-TE-REQTS] defines the requirements for
   support of Diff-Serv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering on a per-Class-


Le Faucheur, et. al                                                  1

             Extensions for Diff-Serv Traffic EngineeringFebruary 2001

   Type basis, as discussed in the Traffic Engineering Working Group
   Framework document [TEWG-FW].

   This document proposes corresponding extensions to RSVP-TE and CR-
   LDP for support of Traffic Engineering on a per-Class-Type basis.

   Two companion documents [DIFF-TE-OSPF] [DIFF-TE-ISIS] propose
   corresponding extensions to OSPF and ISIS for support of Traffic
   Engineering on a per-Class-Type basis.




1.      Introduction

   As Diff-Serv becomes prominent in providing scalable multi-class of
   services in IP networks, performing traffic engineering at a per-
   class level instead of an aggregated level is needed in networks
   where fine optimisation of resources is sought in order to further
   enhance performance and efficiency. By mapping a traffic trunk in a
   given class on a separate LSP, it allows the traffic trunk to
   utilize resources available on both shortest path(s) and non-
   shortest path(s) and follow paths that meet constraints which are
   specific to the given class. It also allows each class to select the
   proper protection/restoration mechanism(s) that satisfy its
   survivability requirements in a cost-effective manner.

   Besides the set of parameters defined for the general aggregate TE
   [TE-REQ], a new set of per-class parameters needs to be provided at
   each LSR interface and propagated via extensions to the IGP
   (ISIS/OSPF)  [TEWG-FW]. Furthermore, the per-class parameters can be
   aggregated into per-Class-Type parameters. The main motivation for
   grouping a set of classes into a Class-Type is to improve the
   scalability of the IGP link state advertisements by propagating
   information on a per-Class-Type basis instead of on a per-class
   basis. This approach also has the benefit of allowing better
   bandwidth sharing between classes in the same Class-Type.

   A Class-Type [TEWG-FW] is defined as a set of classes that satisfy
   the following two conditions:

     1) Classes in the same Class-Type possess common aggregate maximum
       and minimum bandwidth requirements to guarantee the required
       performance level.

     2) There is no maximum or minimum bandwidth requirement to be
       enforced at the level of an individual class within the Class-
       Type. One can still implement some "priority" policies for
       classes within the same Class-Type in terms of accessing the
       Class-Type bandwidth (e.g. via the use of preemption
       priorities).


 Le Faucheur et. al                                                  2

             Extensions for Diff-Serv Traffic EngineeringFebruary 2001

   An example of Class-Type comprising multiple Diff-Serv classes is a
   low-loss Class-Type that includes both AF1-based and AF2-based
   Ordering Aggregates.

   Note that with per Class-Type TE, Constraint-Based Routing is
   performed with bandwidth constraints on a per Class-Type basis but
   LSPs may carry a single Diff-Serv class (Ordered Aggregate) with
   Diff-Serv scheduling (i.e. PHB) performed separately for each class.

   In this document, we will only discuss "per Class-Type TE" because
   "per Class TE" can be viewed as a special case of per Class-Type TE
   (where each Class-Type is degenerated into a single Diff-Serv
   class).

   This document focuses on intra-domain operations. Inter-domain
   operations is for further study.

   A companion document [DIFF-TE-REQTS] defines the requirements for
   support of MPLS Traffic Engineering on a per-Class-Type basis. The
   following sections propose detailed extensions to RSVP and CR-LDP
   that meet those requirements. Two companion documents [DIFF-TE-OSPF]
   and [DIFF-TE-ISIS] propose extensions to OSPF and ISIS that also
   meet those requirements.


2.      RSVP Extensions

   In this section we describe extensions to RSVP for support of
   Diff-Serv Traffic Engineering on a per-Class-Type basis which meet
   the requirements defined in [DIFF-TE-REQTS]. These extensions are in
   addition to the extensions to RSVP defined in [RSVP-TE] for support
   of (aggregate) MPLS Traffic Engineering and to the extensions to
   RSVP defined in [DIFF-MPLS] for support of Diff-Serv over MPLS.

2.1.    Diff-Serv related RSVP Messages Format

   One new RSVP Object is defined in this document: the CLASSTYPE
   Object. Detailed description of this Object is provided below. This
   new Object is applicable to Path messages. This specification only
   defines the use of the CLASSTYPE Object in Path messages used to
   establish LSP Tunnels in accordance with [RSVP-TE] and thus
   containing a Session Object with a C-Type equal to LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4
   and containing a LABEL_REQUEST object.

   Restrictions defined in [RSVP-TE] for support of establishment of
   LSP Tunnels via RSVP are also applicable to the establishment of LSP
   Tunnels supporting Diff-Serv Traffic Engineering. For instance, only
   unicast LSPs are supported and Multicast LSPs are for further study.

   This new CLASSTYPE object is optional with respect to RSVP so that
   general RSVP implementations not concerned with MPLS LSP set up do
   not have to support this object.

 Le Faucheur et. al                                                  3

             Extensions for Diff-Serv Traffic EngineeringFebruary 2001


   An LSR supporting Diff-Serv Traffic Engineering on a per-Class-Type
   basis in compliance with this specification MUST support the
   CLASSTYPE Object. It MUST support Class-Type value 1, and MAY
   support other Class-Type values.

2.1.1.         Path Message Format

   The format of the Path message is as follows:

   <Path Message> ::=      <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ]
                           <SESSION> <RSVP_HOP>
                           <TIME_VALUES>
                           [ <EXPLICIT_ROUTE> ]
                           <LABEL_REQUEST>
                           [ <SESSION_ATTRIBUTE> ]
                           [ <DIFFSERV> ]
                           [ <CLASSTYPE> ]
                           [ <POLICY_DATA> ... ]
                           [ <sender descriptor> ]

   <sender descriptor> ::=  <SENDER_TEMPLATE> [ <SENDER_TSPEC> ]
                           [ <ADSPEC> ]
                           [ <RECORD_ROUTE> ]

2.2.    CLASSTYPE Object

   The CLASSTYPE object format is shown below.

2.2.1.         CLASSTYPE object

   class = TBD, C_Type = 1  (need to get an official class num from the
   IANA with the form 0bbbbbbb)

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        Reserved                                           |CT |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   Reserved : 30 bits
       This field is reserved. It must be set to zero on transmission
       and must be ignored on receipt.

   CT : 2 bits
       Indicates the Class-Type. Values currently allowed are 1, 2 and
       3.


2.3.    Handling CLASSTYPE Object


 Le Faucheur et. al                                                  4

             Extensions for Diff-Serv Traffic EngineeringFebruary 2001

   To establish an LSP tunnel with RSVP, the sender LSR creates a Path
   message with a session type of LSP_Tunnel_IPv4 and with a
   LABEL_REQUEST object as per [RSVP-TE]. The sender LSR may also
   include the DIFFSERV object as per [DIFF-MPLS].

   If the LSP is associated with Class-Type 0, the sender LSR must not
   include the CLASSTYPE object in the Path message.

   If the LSP is associated with Class-Type N (N=1,2,3), the sender LSR
   must include the CLASSTYPE object in the Path message with the
   Class-Type (CT) field set to N.

   If a path message contains multiple CLASSTYPE objects, only the
   first one is meaningful; subsequent CLASSTYPE object(s) must be
   ignored and must not be forwarded.

   Each LSR along the path records the CLASSTYPE object, when present,
   in its path state block.

   If the CLASSTYPE object is not present in the Path message, the LSR
   must associate the Class-Type 0 to the LSP.

   The destination LSR responds to the Path message by sending a Resv
   message without a CLASSTYPE object (whether the Path message
   contained a CLASSTYPE object or not).

   During establishment of an LSP corresponding to the Class-Type N,
   the LSR performs admission control over the bandwidth available for
   that particular Class-Type, which is computed using the smallest of:
     - the Class-Type N bandwidth currently unreserved (i.e. the
       difference between the Maximum Reservable Bandwidth for Class-
       Type N and the bandwidth reserved by existing Class-Type N
       LSPs).
     - the aggregate bandwidth currently unreserved (i.e. the
       difference between the Maximum Reservable Aggregate Bandwidth
       and the bandwidth reserved by existing LSPs of all Class-Types).

   [Editor's Note: the admission control algorithm described in the
   previous paragraph depends on the Bandwidth Reservation Scheme
   discussed in section 2.1 of [DIFF-TE-REQTS] ]

   In order to accurately apportion the resources associated with a
   Class-Type among the classes comprised in this Class-Type, the LSR
   may automatically adjust Diff-Serv scheduling parameters associated
   with a class within a Class-Type based on the bandwidth currently
   reserved by LSPs currently established in that class.

   An LSR that recognizes the CLASSTYPE object and that receives a path
   message which contains the CLASSTYPE object but which does not
   contain a LABEL_REQUEST object or which does not have a session type
   of LSP_Tunnel_IPv4, must send a PathErr towards the sender with the


 Le Faucheur et. al                                                  5

             Extensions for Diff-Serv Traffic EngineeringFebruary 2001

   error code `Diff-Serv TE Error' and an error value of `Unexpected
   CLASSTYPE object'. Those are defined below in section 4.5.

   An LSR receiving a Path message with the CLASSTYPE object, which
   recognizes the CLASSTYPE object but does not support the particular
   Class-Type, must send a PathErr towards the sender with the error
   code `Diff-Serv TE Error' and an error value of `Unsupported Class-
   Type'. Those are defined below in section 4.5.

   An LSR receiving a Path message with the CLASSTYPE object, which
   recognizes the CLASSTYPE object but determines that the Class-Type
   value is not valid (i.e. Class-Type value 0), must send a PathErr
   towards the sender with the error code `Diff-Serv TE Error' and an
   error value of `Invalid Class-Type value'. Those are defined below
   in section 4.5.

   An LSR MUST handle the situations where the LSP can not be accepted
   for other reasons than those already discussed in this section, in
   accordance with [RSVP-TE] and [DIFF-MPLS] (e.g. a reservation is
   rejected by admission control, a label can not be associated).

2.4.    Non-support of the CLASSTYPE Object

   An LSR that does not recognize the CLASSTYPE object Class-Num must
   behave in accordance with the procedures specified in [RSVP] for an
   unknown Class-Num whose format is 0bbbbbbb (i.e. it must send a
   PathErr with the error code `Unknown object class' toward the
   sender).

   An LSR that recognizes the CLASSTYPE object Class-Num but does not
   recognize the CLASSTYPE object C-Type, must behave in accordance
   with the procedures specified in [RSVP] for an unknown C-type (i.e.
   it must send a PathErr with the error code `Unknown object C-Type'
   toward the sender).

   In both situations, this causes the path set-up to fail. The sender
   should notify management that a LSP cannot be established and
   possibly might take action to retry reservation establishment
   without the CLASSTYPE object.

2.5.    Error Codes For Diff-Serv TE

   In the procedures described above, certain errors must be reported
   as a `Diff-Serv TE Error'. The value of the `Diff-Serv TE Error'
   error code is (TBD).

   The following defines error values for the Diff-Serv TE Error:

     Value    Error

       1        Unexpected CLASSTYPE object
       2        Unsupported Class-Type

 Le Faucheur et. al                                                  6

             Extensions for Diff-Serv Traffic EngineeringFebruary 2001

       3        Invalid Class-Type value


3.      CR-LDP Extensions

   CR-LDP, defined in [CR-LDP], is an extension to LDP, defined in
   [LDP], for support of (aggregate) MPLS Traffic Engineering. In this
   section we describe extensions to CR-LDP for support of Diff-Serv
   Traffic Engineering on a per-Class-Type basis which meet the
   requirements defined in [DIFF-TE-REQTS]. These extensions are in
   addition to the extensions to LDP defined in [DIFF-MPLS] for support
   of Diff-Serv over MPLS. They closely resemble the extensions to RSVP
   defined in the previous section.

   Note that extensions of this section for support of Diff-Serv
   Traffic Engineering are not applicable to LDP due to the fact that
   LDP does not support MPLS Traffic Engineering and bandwidth
   reservation in particular.

3.1.    Diff-Serv related CR-LDP Messages Encoding

   One new CR-LDP TLV is defined in this document: the Class Type TLV.
   Detailed description of this TLV is provided below. This new TLV is
   applicable to Label Request messages.

   Restrictions defined in [CR-LDP] for support of establishment of
   LSPs via CR-LDP are also applicable to the establishment of LSPs
   supporting Diff-Serv Traffic Engineering: for instance, only unicast
   LSPs are supported and multicast LSPs are for further study.

   This new Class Type TLV is optional with respect to CR-LDP so that
   general CR-LDP implementations not concerned with per-Class-Type
   Diff-Serv Traffic Engineering are not required to support this TLV.

   An LSR supporting Diff-Serv Traffic Engineering on a per-Class-Type
   basis in compliance with this specification MUST support the Class
   Type TLV. It MUST support Class-Type value 1, and MAY support other
   Class-Type values.

3.1.1.         Label Request Message Encoding

   The encoding for the CR-LDP Label Request message is extended as
   follows, to optionally include the Class Type TLV:
      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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |0|   Label Request (0x0401)   |      Message Length            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                     Message ID                                |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                     FEC TLV                                   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

 Le Faucheur et. al                                                  7

             Extensions for Diff-Serv Traffic EngineeringFebruary 2001

      |                     Diff-Serv TLV        (LDP, optional)      |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                     Class Type TLV       (CR-LDP optional)    |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                     Other CR-LDP TLVs                         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   The extension is based on a related LDP extension, defined in [DIFF-
   MPLS], for support of Diff-Serv TLV but further extended for CR-LDP
   with CR-LDP TLVs.

3.2.    Class Type TLV

   The Class Type TLV has the following form:
      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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |0|0|        Class Type TLV     |      Length                   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |        Reserved                                           |CT |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Reserved : 30 bits
       This field is reserved. It must be set to zero on transmission
       and must be ignored on receipt.

   CT : 2 bits
       Indicates the Class-Type. Values currently allowed are 1, 2 and
       3.

3.3.    Handling Class Type TLV

   To establish an LSP using CR-LDP, an ingress LSR generates a Label
   Request message as per [CR-LDP]. This Label Request may optionally
   include the Diff-Serv TLV as defined in [DIFF-MPLS] for LDP but
   extended to CR-LDP.

   If the LSP is associated with Class-Type 0, the ingress LSR must not
   include the Class Type TLV in the Label Request message.

   If the LSP is associated with Class-Type N (N=1,2,3), the ingress
   LSR must include the Class Type TLV in the Label Request message
   with the Class-Type (CT) field set to N.


   If a Label Request message contains multiple Class Type TLVs, only
   the first one is meaningful; subsequent Class Type TLV(s) must be
   ignored and not forwarded.

   If the Class Type TLV is not present in the Label Request message,
   an LSR must associate the Class-Type 0 to the LSP.

 Le Faucheur et. al                                                  8

             Extensions for Diff-Serv Traffic EngineeringFebruary 2001


   A downstream LSR sending a Label Mapping message in response to a
   Label Request message must not include the Class-Type TLV (whether
   the Class-Type TLV was included in the Label Request message or
   not).

   During establishment of an LSP corresponding to the Class-Type N, an
   LSR performs admission control over the bandwidth available for that
   particular Class-Type, which is computed using the smallest of:
     - the Class-Type N bandwidth currently unreserved (i.e. the
       difference between the Maximum Reservable Bandwidth for Class-
       Type N and the bandwidth reserved by existing Class-Type N
       LSPs).
     - the aggregate bandwidth currently unreserved (i.e. the
       difference between the Maximum Reservable Aggregate Bandwidth
       and the bandwidth reserved by existing LSPs of all Class-Types).

   [Editor's Note: the admission control algorithm described in the
   previous paragraph depends on the Bandwidth Reservation Scheme
   discussed in section 2.1 of [DIFF-TE-REQTS] ]

   In order to accurately apportion the resources associated with a
   Class-Type among the classes comprised in this Class-Type, an LSR
   may automatically adjust Diff-Serv scheduling parameters associated
   with a class within a Class-Type based on the bandwidth currently
   reserved by LSPs currently established in that class.

   An LSR that recognizes the Class Type TLV and receives a Label
   Request message which contains the Class Type TLV but which does not
   contain any of the CR-LDP TLVs, must reject the label request by
   sending upstream a Notification message which includes the Status
   TLV with a Status Code of 'Unexpected Class-Type TLV'. This is
   defined below in section 5.4. This error can only occur when an LDP
   LSP as opposed to CR-LDP LSP is being established. As was already
   mentioned, Class Type TLV extension for Diff-Serv Traffic
   Engineering is not applicable to LDP.

   An LSR receiving a Label Request message with the Class Type TLV,
   which recognizes the Class Type TLV but does not support the
   particular Class-Type, must reject the label request by sending
   upstream a Notification message which includes the Status TLV with a
   Status Code of 'Unsupported Class-Type'. This is defined below in
   section 5.4.

   An LSR receiving a Label Request message with the Class Type TLV,
   which recognizes the Class Type TLV but determines that the Class-
   Type value is not valid (i.e. Class-Type value 0), must reject the
   label request by sending upstream a Notification message which
   includes the Status TLV with a Status Code of 'Invalid Class-Type
   value'. This is defined below in section 5.4.



 Le Faucheur et. al                                                  9

             Extensions for Diff-Serv Traffic EngineeringFebruary 2001

   An LSR MUST handle the situations where the LSP can not be accepted
   for other reasons than those already discussed in this section, in
   accordance with [CR-LDP], [LDP] and [DIFF-MPLS] (e.g. reservation
   rejected by admission control, a label can not be associated).

3.4.    Status Code Values for Diff-Serv TE

   In the procedures described above, certain errors must be reported.
   The following values are defined for the Status Code field of the
   Status TLV:

     Status Code                        E       Status Data

     Unexpected Class Type TLV          0       TBD
     Unsupported Class-Type             0       TBD
     Invalid Class-Type value           0       TBD


4.      Security Considerations

   This document raises no new security issues for IS-IS, OSPF, RSVP or
   CR-LDP. The security mechanisms already proposed for these
   technologies may be used.


5.      Acknowledgments

   This document has benefited from discussions with Carol Iturralde
   and Rob Goguen.


References

   [TE-REQ] Awduche et al, Requirements for Traffic Engineering over
   MPLS, RFC2702, September 1999.

   [TEWG-FW] Awduche et al, A Framework for Internet Traffic
   Engineering, draft-ietf-tewg-framework-02.txt, July 2000.

   [DIFF-TE-REQTS] Le Faucheur et al, Requirements for support of
   Diff-Serv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering, draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-
   reqts-00.txt, February 2001.

   [DIFF-TE-OSPF] Le Faucheur et al,  Extension to OSPF for support of
   Diff-Serv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering, draft-ietf-ospf-diff-te-
   00.txt, February 2001.

   [DIFF-TE-ISIS] Le Faucheur et al,  Extension to ISIS for support of
   Diff-Serv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering, draft-ietf-isis-diff-te-
   00.txt, February 2001.



 Le Faucheur et. al                                                 10

             Extensions for Diff-Serv Traffic EngineeringFebruary 2001

   [OSPF-TE] Katz, Yeung, Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF,
   draft-katz-yeung-ospf-traffic-03.txt, September 2000.

   [ISIS-TE] Smit, Li, IS-IS extensions for Traffic Engineering, draft-
   ietf-isis-traffic-02.txt, September 2000.

   [RSVP-TE] Awduche et al, "Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels",
   draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-tunnel-07.txt, August 2000.

   [DIFF-MPLS] Le Faucheur et al, "MPLS Support of Diff-Serv", draft-
   ietf-mpls-diff-ext-08.txt, February 2001

   [LDP] Andersson et al., "LDP Specification", draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-
   011.txt, August 2000

   [CR-LDP] Jamoussi et al., "Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP",
   draft-ietf-mpls-cr-ldp-04.txt, July 2000

   [BCP14] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
           Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.


Authors' Address:

   Francois Le Faucheur
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   Petra B - Les Lucioles - 291, rue Albert Caquot - 06560 Valbonne -
   France
   Phone: +33 4 92 96 75 64
   Email: flefauch@cisco.com

   Angela Chiu
   Celion Networks
   1 Sheila Drive, Suite 2
   Tinton Falls, NJ 07724
   Phone: +1-732 747 9987
   Email: angela.chiu@celion.com


   William Townsend
   Tenor Networks
   100 Nagog Park
   Acton, MA 01720
   Phone: +1-978-264-4900
   Email: btownsend@tenornetworks.com

   Thomas D. Nadeau
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   250 Apollo Drive
   Chelmsford, MA 01824
   Phone: +1-978-244-3051
   Email: tnadeau@cisco.com

 Le Faucheur et. al                                                 11

             Extensions for Diff-Serv Traffic EngineeringFebruary 2001


   Darek Skalecki
   Nortel Networks
   3500 Carling Ave,
   Nepean K2H 8E9
   Phone: +1-613-765-2252
   Email: dareks@nortelnetworks.com














































 Le Faucheur et. al                                                 12


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.121, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/