[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]
Versions: (draft-bocci-mpls-tp-gach-gal) 00
01 02 03 04 05 06 RFC 5586
MPLS Working Group M. Vigoureux
Internet Draft M. Bocci
Updates: 3032, 4385 Alcatel-Lucent
Intended status: Standard Track
Expires: May 2009 G. Swallow
D. Ward
Cisco Systems, Inc.
R. Aggarwal
Juniper Networks
November 27, 2008
MPLS Generic Associated Channel
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-gach-gal-00
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
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 27, 2009.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
Abstract
Bocci et al. Expires May 27, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft G-ACH and GAL November 2008
This document generalises the applicability of the pseudowire
Associated Channel Header (ACH), enabling the realization of a
control channel associated to MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSP), MPLS
pseudowires (PW) and MPLS Sections. In order to identify the presence
of this G-ACH, this document also assigns of one of the reserved MPLS
label values to the 'Generic Alert Label (GAL)', to be used as a
label based exception mechanism.
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 [1].
Table of Contents
1. Introduction................................................3
1.1. Contributing Authors....................................4
1.2. Objectives.............................................4
1.3. Scope..................................................4
1.4. Terminology............................................5
2. Generic Associated Channel...................................5
2.1. Allocation of Channel Types.............................6
3. Generalised Exception Mechanism..............................6
3.1. Relationship with Existing MPLS OAM Alert Mechanisms.....6
3.2. GAL Applicability and Usage.............................7
3.2.1. GAL Processing.....................................7
3.2.1.1. MPLS Section..................................7
3.2.1.2. Label Switched Paths..........................8
3.2.1.3. Tandem Connection Monitoring Entity...........9
3.3. Relationship with RFC 3429.............................10
4. Compatibility..............................................10
5. Congestion Considerations...................................10
6. Security Considerations.....................................11
7. IANA Considerations........................................11
8. Acknowledgments............................................12
9. References.................................................12
9.1. Normative References...................................12
9.2. Informative References.................................13
Authors' Addresses............................................14
Contributing Authors' Addresses................................14
Intellectual Property Statement................................15
Disclaimer of Validity........................................15
Bocci et al. Expires May 27, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft G-ACH and GAL November 2008
1. Introduction
There is a need for Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM)
mechanisms that can be used for edge-to-edge (i.e. between
originating and terminating LSRs or T-PEs) and segment fault
detection (e.g. between any two LSRs or T-PEs/S-PEs along the path of
an LSP or PW or an MPLS section [17]), diagnostics, maintenance and
other functions for a Pseudowire and an LSP. Some of these functions
can be supported using tools such as VCCV [8], BFD [9], or LSP-Ping
[6]. However, a requirement has been indicated to extend these
toolsets, in particular where MPLS networks are used for packet
transport services and network operations [16]. These include
performance monitoring, automatic protection switching, and support
for management and signaling communication channels. These tools must
be applicable to, and function in essentially the same manner (from
an operational point of view) on both MPLS PWs and MPLS LSPs. They
must also operate in-band on the PW or LSP such that they do not
depend on PSN routing, user data traffic or ultimately on control
plane functions.
Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) can use an
associated channel to provide a control channel between a PW's
ingress and egress points over which OAM and other control messages
can be exchanged. In this document, we propose a generic associated
channel header (G-ACH) to enable the same control channel mechanism
be used for MPLS Sections, LSPs and PWs. The associated channel
header (ACH) specified in RFC 4385 [11] is used with additional code
points to support additional MPLS OAM functions.
Generalizing the ACH mechanism to MPLS LSPs and MPLS Sections also
requires a method to identify that a packet contains a G-ACH followed
by a non-service payload. This document therefore also defines a
label based exception mechanism (the Generic Alert Label, or GAL)
that serves to inform an LSR that a packet that it receives on an LSP
or section belongs to an associated channel.
RFC 4379 [6] and BFD for MPLS LSPs [9] have defined alert mechanisms
that enable a MPLS LSR to identify and process MPLS OAM packets when
the OAM packets are encapsulated in an IP header. These alert
mechanisms are based on TTL expiration and/or use an IP destination
address in the range 127/8. These mechanisms are the default
mechanisms for identifying MPLS OAM packets when the OAM packets are
encapsulated in an IP header. However it may not always be possible
to use these mechanisms in some MPLS applications, (e.g. MPLS-TP
[17]) particularly when IP based demultiplexing cannot be used. This
document proposes an OPTIONAL mechanism that is RECOMMENDED for
Bocci et al. Expires May 27, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft G-ACH and GAL November 2008
identifying and demultiplexing MPLS OAM packets when IP based
mechanisms such as [6] and [9] are not available.
The G-ACH and GAL mechanisms are defined to work together.
Note that, in this document, OAM functions and packets should be
understood in the broad sense, that is, as a set of FCAPS mechanisms
that also include Automatic Protection Switching (APS), Signalling
Control Channel (SCC) and Management Control Channel (MCC).
Note that the GAL and G-ACH are applicable to MPLS in general. Their
applicability to specific applications is outside the scope of this
document. For example, the applicability of the GAL and G-ACH to
MPLS-TP is described in [17] and [18].
1.1. Contributing Authors
The editors gratefully acknowledge the following additional
contributors: Stewart Bryant, Italo Busi, Marc Lasserre, Lieven
Levrau, and Lou Berger.
1.2. Objectives
This document proposes a mechanism to provide for the extended OAM
needs of emerging applications for MPLS. It creates a generic OAM
identification mechanism that may be applied to all MPLS LSPs, while
maintaining compatibility with the PW associated channel header (ACH)
[11]. It also normalizes the use of the ACH for PWs in a transport
context.
1.3. Scope
This document defines the encapsulation header for LSP, MPLS Section
and PW associated channel messages.
It does not define how associated channel capabilities are signaled
or negotiated between LSRs or PEs, the operation of various OAM
functions, or the messages transmitted on the associated channel.
This document does not deprecate existing MPLS and PW OAM mechanisms.
Bocci et al. Expires May 27, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft G-ACH and GAL November 2008
1.4. Terminology
G-ACH: Generic Associated Channel Header
GAL: Generic Alert Label
2. Generic Associated Channel
VCCV [8] defines three Control Channel Types that may be used to
multiplex OAM messages onto a PW: CC Type 1 uses an associated
channel header and is referred to as "In-band VCCV"; CC Type 2 uses
the router alert label to indicate VCCV packets and is referred to as
"Out of Band VCCV"; CC Type 3 uses the TTL to force the packet to be
processed by the targeted routers control plane and is referred to as
"MPLS PW Label with TTL == 1".
The use of the CC Type 1, currently limited to MPLS PWs, is extended
to apply to MPLS LSPs as well as to MPLS Sections. This associated
channel header is called the Generic Associated Channel Header (G-
ACH).
The CC Type 1 channel header is depicted in figure below:
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 0 1|Version| Reserved | Channel Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1 : Generic Associated Channel Header
In the above figure, the first nibble is set to 0001b to indicate a
channel associated with a PW, a LSP or a Section. The Version and
Reserved fields are set to 0, as specified in RFC 4385 [11].
Note that VCCV also includes mechanisms for negotiating the control
channel and connectivity verification (i.e. OAM functions) types
between PEs. These mechanisms need to be extended when a Generalised
associated channel is used for e.g. MPLS LSP OAM. This will most
likely require extensions to label distribution protocols and is
outside the scope of this document.
Bocci et al. Expires May 27, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft G-ACH and GAL November 2008
2.1. Allocation of Channel Types
Values for the Channel Type field, currently used for VCCV, are
specified in RFC 4446 [12].
The functionality of any additional channel types will be defined in
another document. Each associated channel protocol solution document
must specify the value to use for any additional channel types.
3. Generalised Exception Mechanism
The above mechanism enables the multiplexing of various OAM packets
onto a PW, LSP or section and provides information on the type of OAM
function being performed. In the case of a PW, the use of a control
word is negotiated at the time of the PW establishment. However, in
the case of an MPLS LSP or section, there is a need to notify an LSR
of the presence of an associated channel packet i.e. LSPs and
sections require a mechanism to differentiate specific packets (e.g.
OAM) from others, such as normal user-plane ones. This document
proposes that a label be used and calls this special label the
'Generic Alert Label (GAL)'. One of the reserved label values defined
in RFC 3032 [3] is assigned for this purpose. The value of the label
is to be allocated by IANA; this document suggests the value 13.
The GAL provides a generalised exception mechanism to:
o Differentiate specific packets (e.g. OAM) from others, such as
normal user-plane ones,
o Indicate that the Generic Associated Channel Header (G-ACH)
appears immediately after the bottom of the label stack.
The 'Generic Alert Label (GAL)' MUST only be used where both of these
purposes are applicable.
3.1. Relationship with Existing MPLS OAM Alert Mechanisms
RFC 4379 [6] and BFD for MPLS LSPs [9] have defined alert mechanisms
that enable a MPLS LSR to identify and process MPLS OAM packets when
the OAM packets are encapsulated in an IP header. These alert
mechanisms are based on TTL expiration and/or use an IP destination
address in the range 127/8.
Bocci et al. Expires May 27, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft G-ACH and GAL November 2008
These alert mechanisms SHOULD preferably be used in non MPLS-TP
environments. The mechanism defined in this document MAY also be
used.
3.2. GAL Applicability and Usage
The 'Generic Alert Label (GAL)' MUST only be used with Label Switched
Paths (LSPs), with their associated Tandem Connection Monitoring
Entities (see [18] for definitions of TCMEs) and with MPLS Sections.
An MPLS Section is a network segment between two LSRs that are
immediately adjacent at the MPLS layer.
The GAL applies to both P2P and P2MP LSPs, unless otherwise stated.
In MPLS-TP, the GAL MUST always be at the bottom of the label stack
(i.e. S bit set to 1). However, in other MPLS environments, this
document places no restrictions on where the GAL may appear within
the label stack.
The G-ACH MUST be used for PWs when OAM functions that cannot be
demultiplexed using the IP mechanisms described in section 1. The
PWE3 control word MUST be present in the encapsulation of user
packets when the G-ACH is used to demultiplex OAM on a PW.
The GAL MUST NOT appear in the label stack when transporting normal
user-plane packets. Furthermore, the GAL MUST only appear once in the
label stack for OAM packets of a given layer.
3.2.1. GAL Processing
The Traffic Class (TC) field (formerly known as the EXP field) of the
label stack entry containing the GAL follows the definition and
processing rules specified and referenced in [10].
The Time-To-Live (TTL) field of the label stack entry that contains
the GAL follows the definition and processing rules specified in [4].
3.2.1.1. MPLS Section
The following figure (Figure 2) depicts two MPLS LSRs immediately
adjacent at the MPLS layer.
+---+ +---+
| A |-------------| Z |
+---+ +---+
Figure 2 : MPLS-TP OAM over a MPLS Section
Bocci et al. Expires May 27, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft G-ACH and GAL November 2008
With regards to the MPLS Section, both LERs contain Maintenance End
Points (see [18] for definitions of MEPs).
The following figure (Figure 3) depicts the format of a labelled OAM
packet on an associated channel when used for MPLS Section OAM.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| GAL | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Generic-ACH |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| .
. MPLS-TP OAM packet .
. |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3 : Labelled MPLS-TP OAM packet for MPLS Section OAM
To send an MPLS-TP OAM packet on an associated channel of the MPLS
Section, the head-end LSR (A) of the MPLS Section generates a OAM
packet with a G-ACH to which it pushes a GAL.
o The TTL field of the GAL SHOULD be set to 1.
o The S bit of the GAL MUST be set to 1.
The OAM packet, the G-ACH and the GAL SHOULD NOT be modified towards
the tail-end LSR (Z). Upon reception of the labelled packet, the
tail-end LSR (Z), after having checked the GAL fields, SHOULD pass
the whole packet to the appropriate processing entity.
3.2.1.2. Label Switched Paths
The following figure (Figure 4) depicts four LSRs. A LSP is
established from A to D and switched in B and C.
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
| A |-------------| B |-------------| C |-------------| D |
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
Figure 4 : MPLS-TP OAM over a LSP
LERs A and D contain Maintenance End Points (MEPs) with respect to
this LSP. Furthermore, LSRs B and C could also contain Maintenance
Bocci et al. Expires May 27, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft G-ACH and GAL November 2008
Intermediate Points (MIPs) (see [18] for definitions of MEPs and
MIPs).
The following figure (Figure 5) depicts the format of a labelled
MPLS-TP OAM packet when used for LSP OAM.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LSP Label | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| GAL | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Generic-ACH |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| .
. MPLS-TP OAM packet .
. |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5 : Labelled MPLS-TP OAM packet for LSP OAM
Note that it is possible that the LSP MAY also be tunnelled in
another LSP (e.g. if an MPLS Tunnel exists between B and C), and as
such other labels MAY be present above it in the label stack.
To send an MPLS-TP OAM packet on the LSP, the head-end LSR (A)
generates a MPLS-TP OAM packet with a G-ACH on which it first pushes
a GAL followed by the LSP label.
o The TTL field of the GAL SHOULD be set to 1.
o The S bit of the GAL SHOULD be set to 1, in MPLS-TP.
The MPLS-TP OAM packet, the G-ACH or the GAL SHOULD NOT be modified
towards the targeted destination. Upon reception of the labelled
packet, the targeted destination, after having checked both the LSP
label and GAL fields, SHOULD pass the whole packet to the appropriate
processing entity.
3.2.1.3. Tandem Connection Monitoring Entity
Tandem Connection Monitoring will be specified in a separate
document.
Bocci et al. Expires May 27, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft G-ACH and GAL November 2008
3.3. Relationship with RFC 3429
RFC 3429 [15] describes the assignment of one of the reserved label
values, defined in RFC 3032 [3], to the 'OAM Alert Label' that is
used by user-plane MPLS OAM functions for the identification of MPLS
OAM packets. The value of 14 is used for that purpose.
Both this document and RFC 3429 therefore describe the assignment of
reserved label values for similar purposes. The rationale for the
assignment of a new reserved label can be summarized as follows:
o Unlike the mechanisms described and referenced in RFC 3429, MPLS-
TP OAM packet payloads will not reside immediately after the GAL
but instead behind the G-ACH, which itself resides immediately
after the bottom of the label stack when the GAL is present. This
ensures that OAM using the generic associated channel complies
with RFC 4928 [7].
o The set of OAM functions potentially operated in the context of
the generic associated channel is wider than the set of OAM
functions referenced in RFC 3429.
o It has been reported that there are existing implementations and
running deployments using the 'OAM Alert Label' as described in
RFC 3429. It is therefore not possible to modify the 'OAM Alert
Label' allocation, purpose or usage. Nevertheless, it is
RECOMMENDED by this document that no further OAM extensions based
on 'OAM Alert Label' (Label 14) usage be specified or developed.
4. Compatibility
An LER, LSR or PE MUST discard received G-ACH packets if it is not G-
ACH capable, it is not capable of processing packets on the indicated
G-ACH channel, or it has not, through means outside the scope of this
document, indicated to the sending LSR, LER or PE that it will
process G-ACH packets received on the indicated channel. The LER, LSR
or PE MAY increment an error counter and MAY also optionally issue a
system and/or SNMP notification.
5. Congestion Considerations
The congestion considerations detailed in RFC 5085 [8] apply. Further
generic associated channel-specific congestion considerations will be
detailed in a future revision of this document.
Bocci et al. Expires May 27, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft G-ACH and GAL November 2008
6. Security Considerations
The security considerations detailed in RFC 5085 [1], the MPLS
architecture [2], the PWE3 architecture [5] and the MPLS-TP framework
[17]apply.
7. IANA Considerations
This document requests that IANA allocates a Label value, to the
'Generalised-ACH Label (GAL)', from the pool of reserved labels, and
suggests this value to be 13.
Channel Types for the Generic Associated Channel are allocated from
the IANA PW Associated Channel Type registry [12]. The PW Associated
Channel Type registry is currently allocated based on the IETF
consensus process, described in [13]. This allocation process was
chosen based on the consensus reached in the PWE3 working group that
pseudowire associated channel mechanisms should be reviewed by the
IETF and only those that are consistent with the PWE3 architecture
and requirements should be allocated a code point.
However, a requirement has emerged (see [16]) to allow for
optimizations or extensions to OAM and other control protocols
running in an associated channel to be experimented with without
resorting to the IETF standards process, by supporting experimental
code points [14]. This would prevent code points used for such
functions from being used from the range allocated through the IETF
standards and thus protects an installed base of equipment from
potential inadvertent overloading of code points. In order to
support this requirement, this document requests that the code-point
allocation scheme for the PW Associated Channel Type be changed as
follows:
0 - 32751 : IETF Consensus
32752 - 32767 : Experimental
Code points in the experimental range MUST be used according to the
guidelines of RFC 3692 [14]. Experimental OAM functions MUST be
disabled by default. The channel type value used for a given
experimental OAM function MUST be configurable, and care MUST be
taken to ensure that different OAM functions that are not
interoperable are configured to use different channel type values.
Bocci et al. Expires May 27, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft G-ACH and GAL November 2008
8. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank all members of the teams (the Joint
Working Team, the MPLS Interoperability Design Team in IETF and the
T-MPLS Ad Hoc Group in ITU-T) involved in the definition and
specification of MPLS Transport Profile.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997
[2] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., Callon, R., "Multiprotocol Label
Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001
[3] Rosen, E., et al., "MPLS Label Stack Encoding", RFC 3032,
January 2001
[4] Agarwal, P., Akyol, B., "Time To Live (TTL) Processing in
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Networks", RFC 3443,
January 2003
[5] Bryant, S., Pate, P., "Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-Edge
(PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985, March 2005
[6] Kompella, K., Swallow, G., "Detecting Multi-Protocol Label
Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379, February 2006
[7] Swallow, G., Bryant, S., Andersson, L., "Avoiding Equal Cost
Multipath Treatment in MPLS Networks", BCP 128, RFC 4928, June
2007
[8] Nadeau, T., Pignataro, S., "Pseudowire Virtual Circuit
Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control Channel for
Pseudowires", RFC 5085, December 2007
[9] Aggarwal, R., Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Nadeau, T., "BFD For
MPLS LSPs", draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-07, June 2008
[10] Andersson, L., ""EXP field" renamed to "CoS Field"", draft-
ietf-mpls-cosfield-def-02, June 2008
[11] Bryant, S., et al., "Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3)
Control Word for Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, February 2006
Bocci et al. Expires May 27, 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft G-ACH and GAL November 2008
[12] Martini, L., "IANA Allocations for Pseudowire Edge to Edge
Emulation (PWE3)", RFC 4446, April 2006
[13] Narten, T., Alvestrand, H., " Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 2434, October 1998
[14] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers
Considered Useful", RFC 3692, January 2004
9.2. Informative References
[15] Ohta, H., "Assignment of the 'OAM Alert Label' for
Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS) Operation and
Maintenance (OAM) Functions", RFC 3429, November 2002
[16] Vigoureux, M., Betts, M., Ward, D., "Requirements for OAM in
MPLS Transport Networks", draft-vigoureux-mpls-tp-oam-
requirements-00, July 2008
[17] Bryant, S., Bocci, M., Lasserre, M., "A Framework for MPLS in
Transport Networks", draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-00.txt,
November 2008
[18] Busi, I., Niven-Jenkins B., "MPLS-TP OAM Framework and
Overview", draft-busi-mpls-tp-oam-framework-00, October 2008
Bocci et al. Expires May 27, 2009 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft G-ACH and GAL November 2008
Authors' Addresses
Martin Vigoureux (Editor)
Alcatel-Lucent
Email: martin.vigoureux@alcatel-lucent.com
Matthew Bocci (Editor)
Alcatel-Lucent
Email: matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com
David Ward (Editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: dward@cisco.com
George Swallow (Editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: swallow@cisco.com
Rahul Aggarwal (Editor)
Juniper Networks
Email: rahul@juniper.net
Contributing Authors' Addresses
Stewart Bryant
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: stbryant@cisco.com
Italo Busi
Alcatel-Lucent
Email: italo.busi@alcatel-lucent.it
Bocci et al. Expires May 27, 2009 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft G-ACH and GAL November 2008
Marc Lasserre
Alcatel-Lucent
Email: mlasserre@alcatel-lucent.com
Lieven Levrau
Alcatel-Lucent
Email: llevrau@alcatel-lucent.com
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.
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, THE IETF TRUST 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.
Bocci et al. Expires May 27, 2009 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft G-ACH and GAL November 2008
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
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.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Bocci et al. Expires May 27, 2009 [Page 16]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/