[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]
Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 RFC 4461
Network Working Group Seisho Yasukawa (NTT)
Internet Draft Editor
Category: Informational
Expiration Date: December 2005 June 2005
Signaling Requirements for Point to Multipoint
Traffic Engineered MPLS LSPs
<draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-sig-requirement-03.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/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Abstract
This document presents a set of requirements for the establishment
and maintenance of Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Traffic Engineered (TE)
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs).
There is no intent to specify solution specific details nor
application specific requirements in this document.
The requirements presented in this document are
not limited to the requirements of packet switched networks, but also
encompass the requirements of Layer two Switching (L2SC), Time
Division Multiplexing (TDM), lambda and port switching networks
managed by Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) protocols. Protocol solutions
developed to meet the requirements set out in this document must
attempt to be equally applicable to MPLS and GMPLS.
S. Yasukawa (Ed.) [Page 1]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-sig-requirement-03.txt June 2005
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................... 3
1.1 Non-Objectives ............................................. 5
2. Definitions .................................................... 6
2.1 Acronyms ................................................... 6
2.2 Terminology ................................................ 6
2.2.1 Terminology for Partial LSPs .......................... 7
2.3 Conventions ................................................ 8
3. Problem Statement .............................................. 8
3.1 Motivation ................................................. 8
3.2. Requirements Overview ..................................... 9
4. Detailed requirements for P2MP TE extensions .................. 11
4.1 P2MP LSP ................................................. 11
4.2 P2MP explicit routing ..................................... 11
4.3 Explicit Path Loose Hops and Widely Scoped Abstract Nodes . 12
4.4 P2MP TE LSP establishment, teardown, and modification
mechanisms ................................................ 13
4.5 Fragmentation ............................................. 14
4.6 Failure Reporting and Error Recovery ...................... 14
4.7 Record route of P2MP TE LSP .............................. 15
4.8 Call Admission Control (CAC) and QoS Control mechanism
of P2MP TE LSPs ........................................... 16
4.9 Variation of LSP Parameters ............................... 16
4.10 Re-optimization of P2MP TE LSPs .......................... 16
4.11 Tree Remerge ............................................. 17
4.12 Data Duplication ......................................... 18
4.13 IPv4/IPv6 support ........................................ 19
4.14 P2MP MPLS Label .......................................... 19
4.15 Routing advertisement of P2MP capability ................. 19
4.16 Multi-access LANs ........................................ 20
4.17 P2MP MPLS OAM ............................................ 20
4.18 Scalability .............................................. 20
4.18.1 Absolute Limits ..................................... 21
4.19 Backwards Compatibility .................................. 23
4.20 GMPLS .................................................... 23
4.21 P2MP Crankback routing ................................... 24
5. Security Considerations ....................................... 24
6. IANA Considerations ........................................... 25
7. Acknowledgements .............................................. 25
8. References .................................................... 25
8.1 Normative References ...................................... 25
8.2 Informational References .................................. 26
9. Editor's Address .............................................. 27
10. Authors' Addresses ........................................... 27
11. Intellectual Property Consideration .......................... 28
12. Full Copyright Statement ..................................... 29
S. Yasukawa (Ed.) [Page 2]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-sig-requirement-03.txt June 2005
1. Introduction
Existing MPLS Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) allows for strict QoS
guarantees, resources optimization, and fast failure recovery, but
is limited to point-to-point (P2P) applications. Requirements have
been expressed for the provision of point-to-multipoint (P2MP)
services using traffic engineered LSPs and this clearly motivates
enhancements of the base MPLS-TE tool box in order to support P2MP
MPLS-TE LSPs.
[RFC2702] specifies requirements for traffic engineering over MPLS.
It describes traffic engineering in some detail, and those
definitions and objectives are equally applicable to traffic
engineering in a point-to-multipoint service environment. They are
not repeated here, but it is assumed that the reader is fully
familiar with them.
[RFC2702] also explains how MPLS is particularly suited to traffic
engineering, and presents the following eight reasons.
1. Explicit label switched paths which are not constrained by the
destination based forwarding paradigm can be easily created
through manual administrative action or through automated
action by the underlying protocols.
2. LSPs can potentially be efficiently maintained.
3. Traffic trunks can be instantiated and mapped onto LSPs.
4. A set of attributes can be associated with traffic trunks which
modulate their behavioral characteristics.
5. A set of attributes can be associated with resources which
constrain the placement of LSPs and traffic trunks across them.
6. MPLS allows for both traffic aggregation and disaggregation
whereas classical destination only based IP forwarding permits
only aggregation.
7. It is relatively easy to integrate a "constraint-based routing"
framework with MPLS.
8. A good implementation of MPLS can offer significantly lower
overhead than competing alternatives for Traffic Engineering.
These points are equally applicable to point-to-multipoint traffic
engineering. Points 1. and 7. are particularly important. Note that
point 3. implies that the concept of a point-to-multipoint traffic
trunk is defined and is supported (or mapped onto) P2MP LSPs.
That is, the traffic flow for a point-to-multipoint LSP is not
constrained to the path or paths that it would follow during
multicast routing or shortest path destination-based routing, but can
be explicitly controlled through manual or automated action.
Further, the explicit paths that are used may be computed using
algorithms based on a variety of constraints to produce all manner
of tree shapes. For example, an explicit path may be cost-based
S. Yasukawa (Ed.) [Page 3]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-sig-requirement-03.txt June 2005
[STEINER], shortest path, QoS-based, or may use some fair-cost QoS
algorithm.
[RFC2702] also describes the functional capabilities required to
fully support Traffic Engineering over MPLS in large networks.
This document presents a set of requirements for Point-to-Multipoint
(P2MP) Traffic Engineering (TE) extensions to Multiprotocol Label
Switching (MPLS). It specifies functional requirements for solutions
to deliver P2MP TE LSPs.
Solutions that specify procedures for P2MP TE LSP setup MUST satisfy
these requirements. There is no intent to specify solution specific
details nor application specific requirements in this document.
The requirements presented in this document are not limited to the
requirements of packet switched networks, but also encompass the
requirements of TDM, lambda and port switching networks managed by
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) protocols. Protocol solutions developed to
meet the requirements set out in this document MUST attempt to be
equally applicable to MPLS and GMPLS.
Existing MPLS TE mechanisms such as [RFC3209] do not support P2MP TE
LSPs so new mechanisms need to be developed. This should be achieved
with maximum re-use of existing MPLS protocols.
Note that there is a separation between routing and signaling in
MPLS TE. In particular, the path of the MPLS TE LSP is determined by
performing a constraint-based computation (such as CSPF) on a traffic
engineering database (TED). The contents of the TED may be collected
through a variety of mechanisms.
This document focuses on requirements for establishing and
maintaining P2MP MPLS TE LSPs through signaling protocols; and
routing protocols are out of scope. No assumptions are made about
how the TED used as the basis for path computations for P2MP LSPs is
formed.
This requirements document assumes the following conditions for P2MP
MPLS TE LSP establishment and maintenance:
o A P2MP TE LSP will be set up with TE constraints and will allow
efficient packet or data replication at various branching points in
the network. Although replication is a data plane issue, it is the
responsibility of the control plane (acting in conjunction with the
path computation component) to install LSPs in the network such
that replication can be performed efficiently. Note that the notion
of "efficient" replication is relative and may have different
meanings depending on the objectives (see section 4.2).
S. Yasukawa (Ed.) [Page 4]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-sig-requirement-03.txt June 2005
o P2MP TE LSP setup mechanisms must include the ability to add/remove
receivers to/from an existing P2MP TE LSP.
o Tunnel endpoints of P2MP TE LSP will be modified by adding/removing
egress LSRs to/from an existing P2MP TE LSP. It is assumed that the
rate of change of leaves of a P2MP service (that is, the rate at
which new egress LSRs join, or old egress LSRs are pruned) is "not
so high" because P2MP TE LSPs are assumed to be utilized for TE
applications. This issue is discussed at greater length in section
4.18.1.
o A P2MP TE LSP will be protected by fast error recovery mechanisms
to minimize disconnection of a P2MP service. And a set of
attributes of the P2MP TE LSP (e.g. bandwidth etc) will be modified
by some mechanism (e.g. Make-before-break etc) to accommodate
attribute changes to the P2MP service. These issues are discussed
in section 4.6 and 4.10.
It is this document's objective that a solution compliant to the
requirements equips and operates these P2MP TE capabilities in a
scalable fashion.
1.1 Non-Objectives
For clarity, this section lists some items that are out of scope of
this document.
It is assumed that some information elements describing the P2MP TE
LSP are known to the ingress LSR prior to LSP establishment. For
example, the ingress LSRs knows the IP addresses that identify the
egress LSRs of the P2MP TE LSP. The mechanisms by which the ingress
LSR obtains this information is outside the scope of P2MP TE
signaling and so is not included in this document. Other documents
may complete the description of this function by providing
automated, protocol-based ways of passing this information to the
ingress LSR.
The following are non-objectives of this document.
- Non-TE LSPs (such as per-hop, routing-based LSPs).
- Discovery of egress leaves for a P2MP LSP
- Hierarchical P2MP LSPs
- OAM for P2MP LSPs
- Inter-area and inter-AS P2MP TE LSPs
- Applicability of P2MP MPLS TE LSPs to service scenarios
- Specific application or application requirements
- Algorithms for computing P2MP distribution trees
S. Yasukawa (Ed.) [Page 5]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-sig-requirement-03.txt June 2005
- Multipoint-to-point LSPs
- Multipoint-to-multipoint LSPs
- Routing protocols
- Construction of the traffic engineering database
- Distribution of the information used to construct the traffic
engineering database
2. Definitions
2.1 Acronyms
P2P:
Point-to-point
P2MP:
Point-to-multipoint
2.2 Terminology
The reader is assumed to be familiar with the terminology in
[RFC3031] and [RFC3209].
The following terms are defined for use in the context of TE LSPs
only.
P2MP tree:
The ordered set of LSRs and TE links that comprise the path of a
P2MP TE LSP from its ingress LSR to all of its egress LSRs.
ingress LSR:
The LSR that is responsible for initiating the signaling
messages that set up the P2MP TE LSP.
egress LSR:
One of potentially many destinations of the P2MP TE LSP.
Egress LSRs may also be referred to as leaf nodes or leaves.
bud LSR:
An LSR that is an egress, but also has one or more directly
connected downstream LSRs.
branch LSR:
An LSR that has more than one directly connected downstream LSR.
S. Yasukawa (Ed.) [Page 6]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-sig-requirement-03.txt June 2005
graft LSR:
An LSR that is already a member of the P2MP tree and is in
process of signaling a new sub-P2MP tree.
prune LSR:
An LSR that is a member of the P2MP tree and is in
process of tearing down an existing sub-P2MP tree.
P2MP-ID (P2ID):
A unique identifier of a P2MP TE LSP, that is constant for the
whole LSP regardless of the number of branches and/or leaves.
2.2.1 Terminology for Partial LSPs
It is convenient to sub-divide P2MP trees for functional and
representational reasons. A tree may be divided in two dimensions:
- A division may be made along the length of the tree. For example,
the tree may be split into two components each running from the
ingress LSR to a discrete set of egress LSRs
- A tree may be divided at a branch LSR (or any transit LSR) to
produce a component of the tree that runs from the branch (or
transit) LSR to all downstream egress LSRs.
These two methods of splitting the P2MP tree can be combined, so it
is useful to introduce some terminology to allow the partitioned
trees to be clearly described.
Use the following designations:
Source (ingress) LSR - S
Leaf (egress) LSR - L
Branch LSR - B
Transit LSR - X
All - A
Partial (i.e. not all) - P
Define a new term:
Sub-LSP
A segment of a P2MP TE LSP that runs from one of the LSP's LSRs
to one or more of its other LSRs.
S. Yasukawa (Ed.) [Page 7]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-sig-requirement-03.txt June 2005
Using these new concepts we can define any combination or split of
the P2MP tree. For example:
S2L sub-LSP
The path from the source to one specific leaf.
S2PL sub-LSP
The path from the source to a set of leaves.
B2AL sub-LSP
The path from a branch LSR to all downstream leaves.
X2X sub-LSP
A component of the P2MP LSP that is a simple path with
no branches.
Note that the S2AL sub-LSP is equivalent to the P2MP LSP.
2.3 Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in
this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
3. Problem Statement
3.1 Motivation
As described in section 1, Traffic Engineering and Constraint Based
Routing, including Call Admission Control(CAC), explicit source
routing and bandwidth reservation, are required to enable efficient
resource usage and strict QoS guarantees. Such mechanisms also make
it possible to provide services across a congested network where
conventional "shortest path first" forwarding paradigms would fail.
Existing MPLS TE mechanisms [RFC3209] and GMPLS TE mechanisms
[RFC3473] only provide support for P2P TE LSPs. While it is possible
to provide P2MP TE services using P2P TE LSPs, any such approach is
potentially suboptimal since it may result in data replication at
the ingress LSR, or in duplicate data traffic within the network.
Hence, to provide P2MP MPLS TE services in a fully efficient manner
it is necessary to specify specific requirements. These requirements
can then be used to define mechanisms for the use of existing
protocols and/or extensions to existing protocols and/or new
protocols.
S. Yasukawa (Ed.) [Page 8]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-sig-requirement-03.txt June 2005
3.2. Requirements Overview
This document states basic requirements for the setup of P2MP TE
LSPs. The requirements apply to the signaling techniques only, and
no assumptions are made about which routing protocols are run within
the network, nor about how the information that is used to construct
the Traffic Engineering Database (TED) is distributed. These factors
are out of the scope of this document.
A P2MP TE LSP path will be computed taking into account various
constraints such as bandwidth, affinities, required level of
protection and so on. The solution MUST allow for the computation of
P2MP TE LSP paths satisfying constraints with the objective of
supporting various optimization criteria such as delays, bandwidth
consumption in the network, or any other combinations. This is likely
to require the presence of a TED, as well as the ability to signal
the explicit path of an LSP.
A desired requirement is also to maximize the re-use of existing
MPLS TE techniques and protocols where doing so does not adversely
impact the function, simplicity or scalability of the solution.
This document does not restrict the choice of signaling protocol
used to set up a P2MP TE LSP, but it should be noted that [RFC3468]
states
... the consensus reached by the Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Working Group within the IETF to focus its efforts on
"Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP)-TE: Extensions to RSVP for
Label-Switched Paths (LSP) Tunnels" (RFC 3209) as the MPLS signaling
protocol for traffic engineering applications...
The P2MP TE LSP setup mechanism MUST include the ability to
add/remove egress LSRs to/from an existing P2MP TE LSP and MUST
allow for the support of all the TE LSP management procedures
already defined for P2P TE LSP. Further, when new TE LSP procedures
are developed for P2P TE LSPs equivalent or identical procedures
SHOULD be developed for P2MP TE LSPs.
The computation of P2MP trees is implementation dependent and is
beyond the scope of the solutions that are built with this document
as a guideline.
S. Yasukawa (Ed.) [Page 9]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-sig-requirement-03.txt June 2005
Consider the following figure.
Source 1 (S1)
|
I-LSR1
| |
| |
R2----E-LSR3--LSR1 LSR2---E-LSR2--Receiver 1 (R1)
| :
R3----E-LSR4 E-LSR5
| :
| :
R4 R5
Figure 1
Figure 1 shows a single ingress (I-LSR1), and four egresses(E-LSR2,
E-LSR3, E-LSR4 and E-LSR5). I-LSR1 is attached to a traffic source
that is generating traffic for a P2MP application. Receivers R1, R2,
R3 and R4 are attached to E-LSR2, E-LSR3 and E-LSR4.
The following are the objectives of P2MP LSP establishment and use.
a) A P2MP tree which satisfies various constraints is
pre-determined and supplied to ingress I-LSR1.
Note that no assumption is made on whether the tree is
provided to I-LSR1 or computed by I-LSR1. Note that the
solution SHOULD also allow for the support of partial path by
means of loose routing.
Typical constraints are bandwidth requirements, resource class
affinities, fast rerouting, preemption, to mention a few of
them. There should not be any restriction on the possibility
to support the set of constraints already defined for point to
point TE LSPs. A new constraint may specify which LSRs should
be used as branch points for the P2MP LSR in order to take
into account some LSR capabilities or network constraints.
b) A P2MP TE LSP is set up from I-LSR1 to E-LSR2, E-LSR3 and
E-LSR4 using the tree information.
c) In this case, the branch LSR1 should replicate incoming
packets or data and send them to E-LSR3 and E-LSR4.
d) If a new receiver (R5) expresses an interest in receiving
traffic, a new tree is determined and a B2L sub-LSP from
LSR2 to E-LSR5 is grafted onto the P2MP TE LSP. LSR2 becomes a
branch LSR.
S. Yasukawa (Ed.) [Page 10]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-sig-requirement-03.txt June 2005
4. Detailed requirements for P2MP TE extensions
4.1 P2MP LSP
The P2MP TE extensions MUST be applicable to the signaling of LSPs
for different switching types. For example, it MUST be possible to
signal a P2MP TE LSP in any switching medium being packet or
non-packet based (including frame, cell, TDM, lambda, etc.)
As with P2P MPLS technology [RFC3031], traffic is classified with a
FEC in this extension. All packets which belong to a particular FEC
and which travel from a particular node MUST follow the same P2MP
tree.
In order to scale to a large number of branches, P2MP TE LSPs SHOULD
be identified by a unique identifier (the P2MP ID or P2ID) that is
constant for the whole LSP regardless of the number of branches
and/or leaves. Therefore, the identification of the P2MP session by
its destination addresses is not adequate.
4.2 P2MP explicit routing
Various optimizations in P2MP tree formation need to be applied to
meet various QoS requirements and operational constraints.
Some P2MP applications may request a bandwidth guaranteed P2MP tree
which satisfies end-to-end delay requirements. And some operators
may want to set up a cost minimum P2MP tree by specifying branch
LSRs explicitly.
The P2MP TE solution therefore MUST provide a means of establishing
arbitrary P2MP trees under the control of an external tree
computation process or path configuration process or dynamic tree
computation process located on the ingress LSR. Figure 2 shows two
typical examples.
A A
| / \
B B C
| / \ / \
C D E F G
| / \ / \/ \ / \
D--E*-F*-G*-H*-I*-J*-K*--L H I J KL M N O
Steiner P2MP tree SPF P2MP tree
Figure 2 Examples of P2MP TE LSP topology
One example is the Steiner P2MP tree (Cost minimum P2MP tree)
[STEINER]. This P2MP tree is suitable for constructing a cost
S. Yasukawa (Ed.) [Page 11]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-sig-requirement-03.txt June 2005
minimum P2MP tree so as to minimize the bandwidth consumption in
the core. To realize this P2MP tree, several intermediate LSRs must
be both MPLS data terminating LSRs and transit LSRs (LSRs E, F, G,
H, I, J and K in the figure 2). Therefore, the P2MP TE solution MUST
support a mechanism that can setup this kind of bud LSR between an
ingress LSR and egress LSRs. Note that this includes constrained
Steiner trees that allow for the computation of a minimal cost trees
with some other constraints such as a bounded delay between the
source and every receiver.
Another example is a CSPF (Constraint Shortest Path First) P2MP
tree. By some metric (which can be set upon any specific criteria
like the delay, bandwidth, a combination of those), one can
calculate a shortest path P2MP tree. This P2MP tree is suitable for
carrying real time traffic.
The solution MUST allow the operator to make use of any tree
computation technique. In the former case an efficient/optimal tree
is defined as a minimal cost tree (Steiner tree) whereas in the
later case it is defined as the tree that provides shortest path
between the source and any receiver.
To support explicit setup of any reasonable P2MP tree shape, a P2MP
TE solution MUST support some form of explicit source-based control
of the P2MP tree which can explicitly include particular LSRs as
branch nodes. This can be used by the ingress LSR to setup the P2MP
TE LSP. For instance, a P2MP TE LSP can be simply represented as a
whole tree or by its individual branches.
4.3 Explicit Path Loose Hops and Widely Scoped Abstract Nodes
A P2MP tree is completely specified if all of the required branches
and hops between a sender and leaf LSR are indicated.
A P2MP tree is partially specified if only a subset of intermediate
branches and hops are indicated. This may be achieved using loose
hops in the explicit path, or using widely scoped abstract nodes
(that is, abstract nodes that are not simple [RFC3209]) such as IPv4
prefixes shorter than 32 bits, or AS numbers. A partially specified
P2MP tree might be particularly useful in inter-area and inter-AS
situations although P2MP requirements for inter-area and inter-AS are
beyond the scope of this document.
Protocol solutions SHOULD include a way to specify loose hops and
widely scoped abstract nodes in the explicit source-based control of
the P2MP tree as defined in the previous section. Where this support
is provided, protocol solutions MUST allow downstream LSRs to apply
further explicit control to the P2MP tree to resolve a partially
specified tree into a (more) completely specified tree.
S. Yasukawa (Ed.) [Page 12]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-sig-requirement-03.txt June 2005
Protocol solutions MUST allow the P2MP tree to be completely
specified at the ingress where sufficient information exists to allow
the full tree to be computed and where policies along the path (such
as at domain boundaries) support full specification.
In all cases, the egress nodes of the P2MP TE LSP must be fully
specified either individually or through some collective identifier.
Without this information, it is impossible to know to where the TE
LSP should be routed.
In case of a tree being computed by some downstream LSRs (e.g. the
case of hops specified as loose hops), the solution MUST provide
protocol mechanisms for the ingress LSR of the P2MP TE LSP to learn
the full P2MP tree. Note that this information may not always be
obtainable owing to policy considerations, but where part of the path
remains confidential it MUST be reported through aggregation (for
example, using an AS number).
4.4 P2MP TE LSP establishment, teardown, and modification mechanisms
The P2MP TE solution MUST support establishment, maintenance and
teardown of P2MP TE LSPs in a manner that is at least scalable in a
linear way. This MUST include both the existence of very many LSPs at
once, and the existence of very many destinations for a single P2MP
LSP.
In addition to P2MP TE LSP establishment and teardown mechanism, it
SHOULD implement partial P2MP tree modification mechanism.
For the purpose of adding sub-P2MP TE LSPs to an existing P2MP TE
LSP, the extensions SHOULD support a grafting mechanism. For the
purpose of deleting a sub-P2MP TE LSPs from an existing P2MP TE LSP,
the extensions SHOULD support a pruning mechanism.
It is RECOMMENDED that these grafting and pruning operations do not
cause any additional processing in nodes except along the path to
the grafting and pruning node and its downstream nodes. Moreover,
both grafting and pruning operations MUST not be traffic disruptive
for the traffic currently forwarded along the P2MP tree.
There is no assumption that the explicitly routed P2MP LSP remains on
an optimal path after several grafts and prunes have occurred. In
this context, scalable refers to the signaling process for the P2MP
TE LSP. The TE nature of the LSP allows that re-optimization may take
place from time to time to restore the optimality of the LSP.
S. Yasukawa (Ed.) [Page 13]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-sig-requirement-03.txt June 2005
4.5 Fragmentation
The P2MP TE solution MUST handle the situation where a single
protocol message cannot contain all of the information necessary to
signal the establishment of the P2MP LSP. It MUST be possible to
establish the LSP in these circumstances.
This situation may arise in either of the following circumstances.
a. The ingress LSR cannot signal the whole tree in a single
message.
b. The information in a message expands to be too large (or is
discovered to be too large) at some transit node. This may
occur because of some increase in the information that needs
to be signaled or because of a reduction in the size of
signaling message that is supported.
The solution to these problems SHOULD NOT rely on IP fragmentation of
protocol messages and it is RECOMMENDED to rely on some protocol
procedures specific to the signaling solution.
In the event that fragmented IP packets containing protocol messages
are received, it is NOT RECOMMENDED that they are reassembled at the
receiving LSR.
4.6 Failure Reporting and Error Recovery
Failure events may cause egress nodes or sub-P2MP LSPs to become
detached from the P2MP TE LSP. These events MUST be reported upstream
as for a P2P LSP.
The solution SHOULD provide recovery techniques such as protection
and restoration allowing recovery of any impacted sub-P2MP TE LSPs.
In particular, a solution MUST provide fast protection mechanisms
applicable to P2MP TE LSP similar to the solutions specified in
[RFC4090] for P2P TE LSPs. Note also that no assumption is made on
whether backup paths for P2MP TE LSPs should or should not be shared
with P2P TE LSPs backup paths.
Note that the functions specified in [RFC4090] are currently specific
to packet environments and do not apply to non-packet environments.
Thus, while solutions MUST provide fast protection mechanisms similar
to those specified in [RFC4090], this requirement is limited to the
subset of the solution space that applies to packet switched networks
only.
Note that the requirements expressed in this document are general to
all MPLS TE P2MP signaling, and any solution that meets them will
therefore be general. Specific applications may have additional
requirements, or may want to relax some requirements stated in this
S. Yasukawa (Ed.) [Page 14]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-sig-requirement-03.txt June 2005
document. This may lead to variations in the solution.
The solution SHOULD also support the ability to meet other network
recovery requirements such as bandwidth protection and bounded
propagation delay increase along the backup path during failure.
A P2MP TE solution MUST support P2MP fast protection mechanism to
handle P2MP applications sensitive to traffic disruption.
If the ingress is informed of the failure of delivery to fewer than
all of the egress nodes this SHOULD NOT cause automatic teardown of
the P2MP TE LSP. That is, while some egress nodes remain connected to
the P2MP tree it SHOULD be a matter of local policy at the ingress
whether the P2MP LSP is retained.
When all egress nodes downstream of a branch node have become
disconnected from the P2MP tree, and the some branch node is unable
to restore connectivity to any of them by means of some recovery or
protection mechanisms, the branch node MAY remove itself from the
P2MP tree provided that it is not also an egress LSR (that is, a
bud). Since the faults that severed the various downstream egress
nodes from the P2MP tree may be disparate, the branch node MUST
report all such errors to its upstream neighbor. An upstream LSR or
the ingress node can then decide to re-compute the path to those
particular egress nodes, around the failure point.
Solutions MAY include the facility for transit LSRs and particularly
branch nodes to recompute sub-P2MP trees to restore them after
failures. In the event of successful repair, error notifications
SHOULD NOT be reported to upstream nodes, but the new paths are
reported if route recording is in use. Crankback requirements are
discussed in Section 4.21.
4.7 Record route of P2MP TE LSP
Being able to identify the established topology of P2MP TE LSP is
very important for various purposes such as management and operation
of some local recovery mechanisms like Fast Reroute [RFC4090]. A
network operator uses this information to manage P2MP TE LSPs.
Therefore the P2MP TE solution MUST support a mechanism which can
collect and update P2MP tree topology information after P2MP LSP
establishment and modification process.
It is RECOMMENDED that the information is collected in a data format
which allows easy recognition of the P2MP tree topology.
The solution MUST support mechanisms for the recording of both
outgoing interfaces and node-ids.
S. Yasukawa (Ed.) [Page 15]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-sig-requirement-03.txt June 2005
The solution MUST gracefully handle scaling issues concerned with the
collection of P2MP tree information including the case where the
collected information is too large to be carried in a single protocol
message.
4.8 Call Admission Control (CAC) and QoS Control mechanism of
P2MP TE LSPs
P2MP TE LSPs may share network resource with P2P TE LSPs. Therefore
it is important to use CAC and QoS in the same way as P2P TE LSPs
for easy and scalable operation.
P2MP TE solutions MUST support both resource sharing and exclusive
resource utilization to facilitate co-existence with other LSPs to
the same destination(s).
P2MP TE solution MUST be applicable to DiffServ-enabled networks
that can provide consistent QoS control in P2MP LSP traffic.
Any solution SHOULD also satisfy the DS-TE requirements [RFC3564]
and interoperate smoothly with current P2P DS-TE protocol
specifications.
Note that this requirement document does not make any assumption on
the type of bandwidth pool used for P2MP TE LSPs which can either be
shared with P2P TE LSP or be dedicated for P2MP use.
4.9 Variation of LSP Parameters
Certain parameters (such as priority and bandwidth) are associated
with an LSP. The parameters are installed by the signaling exchanges
associated with establishing and maintaining the LSP.
Any solution MUST NOT allow for variance of these parameters within
a single P2MP LSP. That is:
- No attributes set and signaled by the ingress of a P2MP LSP may
be varied by downstream LSRs.
- There MUST be homogeneous QoS from the root to all leaves of a
single P2MP LSP.
Variation of parameters may be allowed so long as it applies to the
whole LSP from ingress to all egresses.
4.10 Re-optimization of P2MP TE LSPs
The detection of a more optimal path (for example, one with a lower
overall cost) is an example of a situation where P2MP TE LSP
re-routing may be required. While re-routing is in progress, an
important requirement is avoiding double bandwidth reservation
(over the common parts between the old and new LSP) thorough the use
S. Yasukawa (Ed.) [Page 16]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-sig-requirement-03.txt June 2005
of resource sharing.
Make-before-break MUST be supported for a P2MP TE LSP to ensure that
there is minimal traffic disruption when the P2MP TE LSP is
re-routed.
It is possible to achieve make-before-break that only applies to a
sub-P2MP tree without impacting the data on all of the other parts
of the P2MP tree.
The solution SHOULD allow for make-before-break re-optimization of
any subdivision of the P2MP LSP (S2PL sub-LSP, S2X sub-LSP, S2L
sub-LSP, X2AL sub-LSP, B2PL sub-LSP, X2AL sub-LSP, or B2AL tree).
Further it SHOULD do so minimizing the signaling impact on the rest
of the P2MP LSP, and without affecting the ability of the management
plane to manage the LSP.
The solution SHOULD also provide the ability for the ingress LSR to
have a strict control on the re-optimization process. The ingress
LSR SHOULD be able to limit all re-optimization to be
source-initiated.
Where sub-LSP re-optimization is allowed by the ingress LSR, such
re-optimization MAY be initiated by a downstream LSR that is the
root of the sub-LSP that is to be re-optimized. Sub-LSP
re-optimization initiated by a downstream LSR MUST be carried out
with the same regard to minimizing the hit on active traffic as
was described above for other re-optimization.
4.11 Tree Remerge
It is possible for a single transit LSR to receive multiple signaling
messages for the same P2MP LSP but for different sets of
destinations. These messages may be received from the same or
different upstream nodes and may need to be passed on to the same or
different downstream nodes.
This situation may arise as the result of the signaling solution
definition or implementation options within the signaling solution.
Further, it may happen during make-before-break reoptimization
(section 4.10), or as a result of signaling message fragmentation
(section 4.5).
It is even possible that it is necessary to construct distinct
upstream branches in order to achieve the correct label choices in
certain switching technologies managed by GMPLS (for example,
photonic cross-connects where the selection of a particular lambda
for the downstream branches is only available on different upstream
switches).
S. Yasukawa (Ed.) [Page 17]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-sig-requirement-03.txt June 2005
The solution MUST support the case where of multiple signaling
messages for the same P2MP LSP are received at a single transit LSR
and refer to the same upstream interface. In this case the result of
the protocol procedures SHOULD be a single data flow on the upstream
interface.
The solution SHOULD support the case where multiple signaling
messages for the same P2MP LSP are received at a single transit LSR
and refer to different upstream interfaces, and where each signaling
message results in the use of different downstream interfaces. This
case represents data flows that cross at the LSR but which do not
merge.
The solution MAY support the case where multiple signaling messages
for the same P2MP LSP are received at a single transit LSR and refer
to different upstream interfaces, and where the downstream interfaces
are shared across the received signaling messages. This case
represents the merging of data flows. A solution that supports this
case MUST ensure that data is not replicated on the downstream
interfaces.
An alternative to supporting this last case is for the signaling
protocol to indicate an error such that the merge may be resolved by
the upstream LSRs.
4.12 Data Duplication
Data duplication refers to the receipt by any recipient of duplicate
instances of the data. In a packet environment this means the
receipt of duplicate packets. Although small-scale packet duplication
should be a benign (if inefficient) situation, certain existing and
deployed applications will not tolerate packet duplication. Long-term
packet duplication is, at best, a waste of network and processing
resources, and at worst may cause congestion and the inability to
process the data correctly.
In a non-packet environment data duplication means the duplication in
time of some part of the signal that may lead to the replication of
data or to the scrambling of data.
Data duplication may legitimately arise in various scenarios
including re-optimization of active LSPs as described in the
previous section, and protection of LSPs. Thus, it is impractical to
regulate against data duplication in this document.
Instead, the solution:
- SHOULD limit to bounded transitory conditions the cases where
network bandwidth is wasted by the existence of duplicate delivery
paths.
S. Yasukawa (Ed.) [Page 18]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-sig-requirement-03.txt June 2005
- MUST limit the cases where duplicate data is delivered to an
application to bounded transitory conditions.
4.13 IPv4/IPv6 support
Any P2MP TE solution MUST support IPv4 and IPv6 addressing.
4.14 P2MP MPLS Label
A P2MP TE solution MUST allow the continued use of existing
techniques to establish P2P LSPs (TE and otherwise) within the same
network, and MUST allow the co-existence of P2P LSPs within the same
network as P2MP TE LSPs.
A P2MP TE solution MUST be specified in such a way that it allows
P2MP and P2P TE LSPs to be signaled on the same interface.
4.15 Routing advertisement of P2MP capability
Several high-level requirements have been identified to determine the
capabilities of LSRs within a P2MP network. The aim of such
information is to facilitate the computation of P2MP trees using TE
constraints within a network that contains LSRs that do not all have
the same capabilities levels with respect to P2MP signaling and data
forwarding.
These capabilities include, but are not limited to:
- the ability of an LSR to support branching.
- the ability of an LSR to act as an egress and a branch for the same
LSP.
- the ability of an LSR to support P2MP MPLS-TE signaling.
4.16 Multi-access LANs
P2MP MPLS TE may be used to traverse network segments that are
provided by multi-access media such as Ethernet. In these cases, it
is also possible that the entry point to the network segment is a
branch point of the P2MP LSP.
Two options clearly exist:
- the branch point replicates the data and transmits multiple copies
onto the segment
- the branch point sends a single copy of the data to the segment
and relies on the exit points to discriminate the reception of
the data.
The first option has a significant data plane scaling issue since all
replicated data must be sent through the same port and carried on the
same segment. Thus, a solution SHOULD provide a mechanism for a
S. Yasukawa (Ed.) [Page 19]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-sig-requirement-03.txt June 2005
branch node to send a single copy of the data onto a multi-access
network and reach multiple (adjacent) downstream nodes. The second
option may have control plane scaling issues.
4.17 P2MP MPLS OAM
The MPLS and GMPLS MIB modules will be enhanced to provide P2MP TE
LSP management in line with whatever signaling solutions are
developed.
In order to facilitate correct management, P2MP TE LSPs MUST have
unique identifiers since otherwise it is impossible to determine
which LSP is being managed.
Further discussions of OAM are out of scope for this document.
See [P2MP-OAM] for more details.
4.18 Scalability
Scalability is a key requirement in P2MP MPLS systems. Solutions MUST
be designed to scale well with an increase in the number of any of
the following:
- the number of recipients
- the number of branch points
- the number of branches.
Both scalability of control plane operation (setup, maintenance,
modification and teardown) MUST be considered.
Key considerations MUST include:
- the amount of refresh processing associated with maintaining
a P2MP TE LSP.
- the amount of protocol state that must be maintained by ingress
and transit LSRs along a P2MP tree.
- the number of protocol messages required to set up or tear down a
P2MP LSP as a function of the number of egress LSRs.
- the number of protocol messages required to repair a P2MP LSP after
failure or perform make-before-break.
- the amount of protocol information transmitted to manage
a P2MP TE LSP (i.e. the message size).
- the amount of additional data distributed in potential routing
extensions.
- the amount of additional control plane processing required in
the network to detect whether an add/delete of a new branch is
required, and in particular, the amount of processing in steady
state when no add/delete is requested
- the amount of control plane processing required by the ingress,
transit and egress LSRs to add/delete a branch LSP to/from an
existing P2MP LSP.
S. Yasukawa (Ed.) [Page 20]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-sig-requirement-03.txt June 2005
It is expected that the applicability of each solution will be
evaluated with regards to the aforementioned scalability criteria.
4.18.1 Absolute Limits
In order to achieve the best solution for the problem space it is
helpful to clarify the boundaries for P2MP TE LSPs.
- Number of recipients.
A scaling bound is placed on the solution mechanism such that a
P2MP TE LSP MUST reduce to similar scaling properties as a P2P LSP
when the number of recipients reduces to one.
It is important to classify the issues of scaling within the
context of Traffic Engineering. It is anticipated that the initial
deployments of P2MP TE LSPs will be limited to a maximum of around
a hundred recipients, but that medium term deployments may increase
this to several hundred, and that future deployments may require
significantly larger numbers.
An acceptable upper bound for a solution, therefore, is one that
scales linearly with the number of recipients. It is expected that
solutions will scale better than linearly.
Solutions that scale worse than linear (that is, exponential or
polynomial) are not acceptable whatever the number of recipients
they could support.
- Number of branch points.
Solutions MUST support all possibilities from one extreme of a
single branch point that forks to all leaves on a separate branch,
to the greatest number of branch points which is (n-1) for n
recipients. Assumptions MUST NOT be made in the solution regarding
which topology is more common, and the solution MUST be designed
to ensure scalability in all topologies.
- Dynamics of P2MP tree.
Recall that the mechanisms for determining which recipients should
be added to an LSP, and for adding and removing recipients from
that group are out of the scope of this document. Nevertheless, it
is useful to understand the expected rates of arrival and
departure of recipients since this can impact the selection of
solution techniques.
Again, it must be recalled that this document is limited to
Traffic Engineering, and in this model the rate of change of LSP
egresses may be expected to be lower than the rate of change of
recipients in an IP multicast group.
S. Yasukawa (Ed.) [Page 21]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-sig-requirement-03.txt June 2005
Although the absolute number of recipients coming and going is the
important element for determining the scalability of a solution,
it may be noted that a percentage may be a more comprehensible
measure but that this is not as significant for LSPs with a small
number of recipients.
A working figure for an established P2MP TE LSP is less than 10%
churn per day. That is, a relatively slow rate of churn.
We could say that a P2MP LSP would be shared by multiple multicast
groups and so the dynamics of the P2MP LSP would be relatively
small.
Solutions MUST optimize around such relatively low rates of change
and are NOT REQUIRED to optimize for significantly higher rates
of change.
- Rate of change within the network.
It is also important to understand the scaling with regard to
changes within the network. That is, one of the features of a
P2MP TE LSP is that it can be robust or protected against network
failures, and can be re-optimized to take advantage of newly
available network resources.
It is more important that a solution be optimized for scaling with
respect to recovery and re-optimization of the LSP, than for change
in the recipients, because P2MP is used as a TE tool.
The solution MUST follow this distinction.
4.19 Backwards Compatibility
It SHOULD be an aim of any P2MP solution to offer as much backward
compatibility as possible. An ideal which is probably impossible to
achieve would be to offer P2MP services across legacy MPLS networks
without any change to any LSR in the network.
If this ideal cannot be achieved, the aim SHOULD be to use legacy
nodes as both transit non-branch LSRs and egress LSRs.
It is a further requirement for the solution that any LSR that
implements the solution SHALL NOT be prohibited by that act from
supporting P2P TE LSPs using existing signaling mechanisms. That is,
unless administratively prohibited, P2P TE LSPs MUST be supported
through a P2MP network.
Also, it is a requirement that P2MP TE LSPs MUST be able to co-exist
with IP unicast and IP multicast networks.
S. Yasukawa (Ed.) [Page 22]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-sig-requirement-03.txt June 2005
4.20 GMPLS
The requirement for P2MP services for non-packet switch interfaces
is similar to that for Packet-Switch Capable (PSC) interfaces.
Therefore, it is a requirement that reasonable attempts must be made
to make all the features/mechanisms (and protocol extensions) that
will be defined to provide MPLS P2MP TE LSPs equally applicable to
P2MP PSC and non-PSC TE-LSPs. If the requirements of non-PSC networks
over-complicate the PSC solution a decision may be taken to separate
the solutions.
Solutions for MPLS P2MP TE-LSPs when applied to GMPLS P2MP PSC or
non-PSC TE-LSPs MUST be backward and forward compatible with the
other features of GMPLS including:
- control and data plane separation (IF_ID RSVP_HOP and IF_ID
ERROR_SPEC),
- full support of numbered and unnumbered TE links (see [RFC 3477]
and [GMPLS-ROUTE]),
- use of the GENERALIZED_LABEL_REQUEST, the GENERALIZED_LABEL (C-Type
2 and 3), the SUGGESTED_LABEL and the RECOVERY_LABEL, in
conjunction with the LABEL_SET and the ACCEPTABLE_LABEL_SET object,
- processing of the ADMIN_STATUS object,
- processing of the PROTECTION object,
- support of Explicit Label Control,
- processing of the Path_State_Removed Flag,
- handling of Graceful Deletion procedures,
- E2E and Segment Recovery procedures,
- support of Graceful Restart.
In addition, since non-PSC TE-LSPs may have to be processed in
environments where the "P2MP capability" could be limited, specific
constraints may also apply during the P2MP TE Path computation.
Being technology specific, these constraints are outside the scope
of this document. However, technology independent constraints
(i.e. constraints that are applicable independently of the LSP
class) SHOULD be allowed during P2MP TE LSP message processing.
It has to be emphasized that path computation and management
techniques shall be as close as possible to those being used for
PSC P2P TE LSPs and P2MP TE LSPs.
4.21 P2MP Crankback routing
P2MP solutions SHOULD support crankback requirements as defined in
[CRANKBACK]. In particular, they SHOULD provide sufficient
information to a branch LSR from downstream LSRs to allow the branch
LSR to re-route a sub-LSP around any failures or problems in the
network.
S. Yasukawa (Ed.) [Page 23]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-sig-requirement-03.txt June 2005
5. Security Considerations
This requirements document does not define any protocol extensions
and does not, therefore, make any changes to any security models.
It should be noted that P2MP signaling mechanisms built on P2P
RSVP-TE signaling are likely to inherit all of the security
techniques and problems associated with RSVP-TE. These problems may
be exacerbated in P2MP situations where security relationships may
need to maintained between an ingress and multiple egresses. Such
issues are similar to security issues for IP multicast.
It is a requirement that documents offering solutions for P2MP LSPs
MUST have detailed security sections.
6. IANA Considerations
This informational draft does not introduce any new encodings or code
points. It requires no action from IANA.
7. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank George Swallow, Ichiro Inoue, Dean
Cheng, Lou Berger and Eric Rosen for their review and suggestions.
Thanks to Loa Andersson for his help resolving the final issues in
this document.
8. References
8.1 Normative References
[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.
[RFC2475] Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z.
and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated
Services", RFC 2475, December 1998.
[RFC2597] Heinanen, J., Baker, F., Weiss, W. and J. Wroclawski,
"Assured Forwarding PHB Group", RFC 2597, June 1999.
[RFC2702] D. Awduche, J. Malcolm, J. Agogbua, M. O'Dell, J.
McManus, "Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over
MPLS", RFC2702, September 1999.
S. Yasukawa (Ed.) [Page 24]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-sig-requirement-03.txt June 2005
[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A. and R. Callon,
"Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031,
January 2001.
[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.
[RFC3246] Davie, B., Charny, A., Bennet, J.C.R., Benson, K., Le
Boudec, J.Y., Davari, S., Courtney, W., Firioiu, V. and
D. Stiliadis, "An Expedited Forwarding PHB (Per-Hop
Behavior)", RFC 3246, March 2002.
[RFC3667] Bradner, S., "IETF Rights in Contributions", BCP 78,
RFC 3667, February 2004.
[RFC3668] Bradner, S., Ed., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3668, February 2004.
8.2 Informational References
[RFC3471] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description",
RFC 3471, January 2003.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling - Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions",
RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC3477] K. Kompella, Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered Links
in Resource ReSerVation Protocol -Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE)", RFC3477, January 2003.
[RFC3564] F. Le Faucheur, W. Lai, "Requirements for Support of
Differentiated Services-aware MPLS Traffic
Engineering", RFC 3564, July 2003.
[RFC3630] D. Katz, D. Yeung, K. Kompella, "Traffic Engineering
Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September
2003.
[RFC4090] P. Pan, G. Swallow, A. Atlas, "Fast Reroute Extensions
to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090, May 2005.
[GMPLS-ROUTE] K. Kompella, Y. Rekhter, Editor, "Routing Extensions
in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching", draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing, work in
progress.
S. Yasukawa (Ed.) [Page 25]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-sig-requirement-03.txt June 2005
[STEINER] H. Salama, et al., "Evaluation of Multicast Routing
Algorithm for Real-Time Communication on High-Speed
Networks," IEEE Journal on Selected Area in
Communications, pp.332-345, 1997.
[IS-IS-TE] Henk Smit, Tony Li, "Intermediate System to
Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions for Traffic
Engineering (TE)", RFC 3784, June 2004.
[CRANKBACK] A. Farrel, A. Satyanarayana, A. Iwata, N. Fujita, G.
Ash, S. Marshall, "Crankback Signaling Extensions for
MPLS Signaling", draft-ietf-ccamp-crankback, work in
progress.
[LSP-HIER] K. Kompella, Y. Rekhter, "LSP Hierarchy with
Generalized MPLS TE",
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy, work in progress.
[P2MP-OAM] S. Yasukawa, A. Farrel, D. King, and T. Nadeau, "OAM
Requirements for Point-to-Multipoint MPLS Networks",
draft-yasukawa-mpls-p2mp-oam-reqs, work in progress.
9. Editor's Address
Seisho Yasukawa
NTT Corporation
9-11, Midori-Cho 3-Chome
Musashino-Shi, Tokyo 180-8585,
Japan
Phone: +81 422 59 4769
Email: yasukawa.seisho@lab.ntt.co.jp
10. Authors' Addresses
Dimitri Papadimitriou
Alcatel
Francis Wellensplein 1,
B-2018 Antwerpen,
Belgium
Phone : +32 3 240 8491
Email: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be
JP Vasseur
Cisco Systems, Inc.
300 Beaver Brook Road
Boxborough, MA 01719,
USA
Email: jpv@cisco.com
S. Yasukawa (Ed.) [Page 26]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-sig-requirement-03.txt June 2005
Yuji Kamite
NTT Communications Corporation
Tokyo Opera City Tower
3-20-2 Nishi Shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku,
Tokyo 163-1421,
Japan
Email: y.kamite@ntt.com
Rahul Aggarwal
Juniper Networks
1194 North Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Email: rahul@juniper.net
Alan Kullberg
Motorola Computer Group
120 Turnpike Rd.
Southborough, MA 01772
Email: alan.kullberg@motorola.com
Adrian Farrel
Old Dog Consulting
Phone: +44 (0) 1978 860944
Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Markus Jork
Quarry Technologies
8 New England Executive Park
Burlington, MA 01803
EMail: mjork@quarrytech.com
Andrew G. Malis
Tellabs
2730 Orchard Parkway
San Jose, CA 95134
Phone: +1 408 383 7223
Email: andy.malis@tellabs.com
Jean-Louis Le Roux
France Telecom
2, avenue Pierre-Marzin
22307 Lannion Cedex
France
Email: jeanlouis.leroux@francetelecom.com
11. Intellectual Property Consideration
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
S. Yasukawa (Ed.) [Page 27]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-sig-requirement-03.txt June 2005
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.
12. 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.
S. Yasukawa (Ed.) [Page 28]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/