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

Versions: (draft-otani-pce-gmpls-aps-req) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 RFC 7025

Network Working Group                                    Tomohiro Otani
Internet-Draft                                                     KDDI
Intended status: Informational                            Kenichi Ogaki
                                                          KDDI R&D Labs
                                                         Diego Caviglia
                                                               Ericsson
                                                            Fatai Zhang
                                                                 Huawei
Expires: December 27, 2012                                June 27, 2012




               Requirements for GMPLS applications of PCE

               Document: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-06.txt


Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with
   the provisions of BCP 78 and 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 December 27, 2012.



Abstract

   The initial effort of PCE WG is specifically focused on MPLS (Multi-
   protocol label switching). As a next step, this draft describes



T. Otani et al.         Expires December 2012                 [Page 1]


Internet Drafts       Reqs for GMPLS apps of PCE              June 2012


   functional requirements for GMPLS (Generalized MPLS) application of
   PCE (Path computation element).

Conventions used in this document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119].

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ................................................. 2
   2. Terminology .................................................. 3
   3. GMPLS applications of PCE .................................... 3
      3.1. GMPLS network model ..................................... 3
      3.2. Path computation in GMPLS network ....................... 4
      3.3. Unnumbered Interfaces ................................... 6
      3.4. Asymmetric Bandwidth Path Computation ................... 6
   4. Requirements for GMPLS application of PCE .................... 6
      4.1. Requirements of Path Computation Request ................ 6
      4.2. Requirements of Path Computation Reply .................. 8
      4.3. GMPLS PCE Management .................................... 9
   5. Security consideration ....................................... 9
   6. IANA Considerations .......................................... 9
   7. Acknowledgement .............................................. 9
   8. References ................................................... 9
      8.1. Normative References..................................... 9
      8.2. Informative References................................... 11
   9. Authors' Addresses ........................................... 13

1. Introduction

   The initial effort of PCE WG is focused on solving the path
   computation problem within a domain or over different domains in
   MPLS networks. As the same case with MPLS, service providers (SPs)
   have also come up with requirements for path computation in GMPLS
   networks such as wavelength, TDM-based or Ethernet-based networks as
   well.

   [RFC4655] and [RFC4657] discuss the framework and requirements for
   PCE on both packet MPLS networks and (non-packet switch capable)
   GMPLS networks. This document complements these documents by
   providing some considerations of GMPLS applications in the intra-
   domain and inter-domain networking environments and indicating a set
   of requirements for the extended definition of series of PCE related
   protocols.



T. Otani et al.         Expires December 2012                 [Page 2]


Internet Drafts       Reqs for GMPLS apps of PCE              June 2012


   Note that the requirements for inter-layer traffic engineering
   described in [RFC6457] are outside of the scope of this document.

   Constraint based shortest path first (CSPF) computation within a
   domain or over domains for signaling GMPLS Label Switched Paths
   (LSPs) is more stringent than that of MPLS TE LSPs [RFC4216],
   because the additional constraints, e.g., interface switching
   capability, link encoding, link protection capability and so forth
   need to be considered to establish GMPLS LSPs [CSPF]. GMPLS
   signaling protocol [RFC3471, RFC3473] is designed taking into
   account bi-directionality, switching type, encoding type, SRLG, and
   protection attributes of the TE links spanned by the path, as well
   as LSP encoding and switching type for the end points, appropriately.

   This document provides the investigated results of GMPLS
   applications of PCE for the support of GMPLS path computation. This
   document also provides requirements for GMPLS applications of PCE in
   GMPLS intra-domain and inter-domain environments.

2. Terminology

   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. GMPLS applications of PCE

3.1. GMPLS network model

   Figure 1 depicts a typical network, consisting of several GMPLS
   domains, assumed in this document. D1, D2, D3 and D4 have multiple
   inter-domain links, while D5 has only one inter-domain link. These
   domains follow the definition in [RFC4726].

                      +---------+
            +---------|GMPLS  D2|----------+
            |         +----+----+          |
       +----+----+         |          +----+----+   +---------+
       |GMPLS  D1|         |          |GMPLS  D4|---|GMPLS  D5|
       +----+----+         |          +----+----+   +---------+
            |         +----+----+          |
            +---------|GMPLS  D3|----------+
                      +---------+

                Figure 1: GMPLS Inter-domain network model.


T. Otani et al.         Expires December 2012                 [Page 3]


Internet Drafts       Reqs for GMPLS apps of PCE              June 2012



   Each domain is configured using various switching and link
   technologies defined in [RFC3945] and an end-to-end route needs to
   respect TE link attributes like switching capability, encoding type,
   etc., making the problem a bit different from the case of classical
   (packet) MPLS. In order to route from one GMPLS domain to another
   GMPLS domain appropriately, each domain manages traffic engineering
   database (TED) by PCE, and exchanges or provides route information
   of paths, while concealing its internal topology information.

3.2. Path computation in GMPLS network

   [CSPF] describes consideration of GMPLS TE attributes during path
   computation. Figure 2 depicts a typical GMPLS network, consisting of
   an ingress link, a transit link as well as an egress link, to
   investigate a consistent guideline for GMPLS path computation. Each
   link at each interface has its own switching capability, encoding
   type and bandwidth.

             Ingress             Transit             Egress
   +-----+   link1-2   +-----+   link2-3   +-----+   link3-4   +-----+
   |Node1|------------>|Node2|------------>|Node3|------------>|Node4|
   |     |<------------|     |<------------|     |<------------|     |
   +-----+   link2-1   +-----+   link3-2   +-----+   link4-3   +-----+

               Figure 2: Path computation in GMPLS networks.

   For the simplicity in consideration, the below basic assumptions are
   made when the LSP is created.

   (1) Switching capabilities of outgoing links from the ingress and
   egress nodes (link1-2 and link4-3 in Figure 2) must be consistent
   with each other.

   (2) Switching capabilities of all transit links including incoming
   links to the ingress and egress nodes (link2-1 and link3-4) should
   be consistent with switching type of a LSP to be created.

   (3) Encoding-types of all transit links should be consistent with
   encoding type of a LSP to be created.

   [CSPF] indicates the possible tables of switching capability,
   encoding type and bandwidth at the ingress link, transiting links
   and the egress link which need to be satisfied with GMPLS path
   computation of the created LSP.


T. Otani et al.         Expires December 2012                 [Page 4]


Internet Drafts       Reqs for GMPLS apps of PCE              June 2012


   The non-packet GMPLS networks (e.g., GMPLS-based TDM networks) are
   usually responsible for transmitting data for the client layer.
   These GMPLS networks can provide different types of connections for
   customer services based on different service bandwidth requests.

   The applications and the corresponding additional requirements for
   applying PCE to non-packet networks, for example, GMPLS-based TDM
   networks, are described in Figure 3. In order to simplify the
   description, this document just discusses the scenario in SDH
   networks as an example. The scenarios in SONET or G.709 ODUk layer
   networks are similar to this scenario.

                     N1                    N2

    +-----+       +------+              +------+
    |     |-------|      |--------------|      |       +-------+
    +-----+       |      |---|          |      |       |       |
       A1         +------+   |          +------+       |       |
                     |       |             |           +-------+
                     |       |             |              PCE
                     |       |             |
                     |      +------+       |
                     |      |      |       |
                     |      |      |-----| |
                     |      +------+     | |
                     |         N5        | |
                     |                   | |
                  +------+              +------+
                  |      |              |      |        +-----+
                  |      |--------------|      |--------|     |
                  +------+              +------+        +-----+
                     N3                    N4              A2

                      Figure 3: A simple TDM(SDH) network

   Figure 3 shows a simple TDM(SDH) network topology, where N1, N2, N3,
   N4 and N5 are all SDH switches. Assume that one Ethernet service
   with 100M bandwidth is required from A1 to A2 over this network. The
   client Ethernet service could be provided by a VC4 connection from
   N1 to N4, and it could also be provided by three concatenated VC3
   connections (Contiguous or Virtual concatenation) from N1 to N4.





T. Otani et al.         Expires December 2012                 [Page 5]


Internet Drafts       Reqs for GMPLS apps of PCE              June 2012


   In this scenario, when the ingress node (e.g., N1) receives a client
   service transmitting request, the type of connections (one VC4 or
   three concatenated VC3) could be determined by PCC (e.g., N1 or NMS),
   but could also be determined by PCE automatically based on policy
   [RFC5394]. If it is determined by PCC, PCC should be capable of
   specifying the ingress node and egress node, signal type, the type
   of the concatenation and the number of the concatenation in a PCReq
   message. PCE should consider those parameters during path
   computation. The route information (co-route or separated-route)
   should be specified in a PCRep message if path computation is
   performed successfully.

3.3. Unnumbered Interfaces

   GMPLS supports unnumbered interface ID that is defined in [RFC 3477],
   which means that the endpoints of the path may be unnumbered. It
   should also be possible to request a path consisting of the mixture
   of numbered links and unnumbered links, or a P2MP path with
   different types of endpoints. Therefore, the PCC should be capable
   of indicating the unnumbered interface ID of the endpoints in the
   PCReq message.

3.4. Asymmetric Bandwidth Path Computation

   As per [RFC6387], GMPLS signaling can be used for setting up an
   asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP. If a PCE is responsible for
   the path computation, the PCE should be capable of computing a path
   for the bidirectional LSP with asymmetric bandwidth. It means that
   the PCC should be able to indicate the asymmetric bandwidth
   requirements in forward and reverse directions in the PCReq message.

4. Requirements for GMPLS application of PCE

   In this section, we describe requirements for GMPLS applications of
   PCE in order to establish GMPLS LSP.

4.1. Requirements of Path Computation Request

   As for path computation in GMPLS networks as discussed in section 3,
   the PCE should consider the GMPLS TE attributes appropriately
   according to tables in [CSPF] once a PCC or another PCE requests a
   path computation. Indeed, the path calculation request message from
   the PCC or the PCE must contain the information specifying
   appropriate attributes. According to [RFC5440],[PCEP-EXT],[ PCE-
   WSON-REQ] and to RSVP procedures like explicit label
   control(ELC),the additional attributes introduced are as follows:
   [RFC5440]


T. Otani et al.         Expires December 2012                 [Page 6]


Internet Drafts       Reqs for GMPLS apps of PCE              June 2012


   (1) Switching capability: PSC1-4, L2SC, DCSC [RFC6002], 802_1 PBB-TE
   [RFC6060], TDM, LSC, FSC

   (2) Encoding type: as defined in [RFC4202], [RFC4203], e.g.,
   Ethernet, SONET/SDH, Lambda, etc.

   (3) Signal Type: Indicates the type of elementary signal that
   constitutes the requested LSP. A lot of signal types with different
   granularity have been defined in SONET/SDH and G.709 ODUk, such as
   VC11, VC12, VC2, VC3 and VC4 in SDH, and ODU1, ODU2 and ODU3 in
   G.709 ODUk. See[RFC4606] , [RFC4328]and [OSPF-G709] or [RSVP-TE-
   G709].

   (4) Concatenation Type: In SDH/SONET and G.709 ODUk networks, two
   kinds of concatenation modes are defined: contiguous concatenation
   which requires co-route for each member signal and requires all the
   interfaces along the path to support this capability, and virtual
   concatenation which allows diverse routes for the member signals and
   only requires the ingress and egress interfaces to support this
   capability. Note that for the virtual concatenation, it also may
   specify co-routed or separated-routed. See [RFC4606] and [RFC4328]
   about concatenation information.

   (5) Concatenation Number: Indicates the number of signals that are
   requested to be contiguously or virtually concatenated. Also see
   [RFC4606] and [RFC4328].

   (6) Technology specific label(s) such as wavelength label as defined
   in [RFC6205], or labels defined in [RFC4606], [RFC6060] or [RFC6002].

   (7) e2e Path protection type: as defined in [RFC4872], e.g., 1+1
   protection, 1:1 protection, (pre-planned) rerouting, etc.

   (8) Administrative group: as defined in [RFC3630].

   (9) Link Protection type: as defined in [RFC4203].

   (10)Support for unnumbered interfaces: as defined in [RFC3477].

   (11)Support for asymmetric bandwidth request: as defined in
   [RFC6387].

   (12)Support for explicit label control during the path computation.

   (13) The PCC/PCE should be able to provide label restrictions
   similar to RSVP on the requests/responses



T. Otani et al.         Expires December 2012                 [Page 7]


Internet Drafts       Reqs for GMPLS apps of PCE              June 2012


4.2. Requirements of Path Computation Reply

   As described above, a PCC must support to initiate a PCReq message
   specifying above mentioned attributes. The PCE should compute the
   path that satisfies the constraints which are specified in the PCReq
   message. Then the PCE should send a PCRep message including the
   computation result to the PCC. For Path Computation Reply message
   (PCRep) in GMPLS networks, there are some additional requirements.
   The PCEP PCRep message must be extended to meet the following
   requirements.

   (1) Concatenation path computation

   In the case of concatenation path computation, when a PCE receives
   the PCReq message specifying the concatenation constraints described
   in section 4.1, the PCE should compute the path which satisfies the
   specified concatenation constraints.

   For contiguous concatenation path computation, the routes of each
   member signal must be co-routed and all the interfaces along the
   route should support contiguous concatenation capability. Therefore,
   the PCE should compute a path based on the contiguous concatenation
   capability of each interface and only one ERO which should carry the
   route information for the response.

   For virtual concatenation path computation, only the ingress/egress
   interfaces need to support virtual concatenation capability and
   maybe there are diverse routes for the different member signals.
   Therefore, multiple EROs may be needed for the response. Each ERO
   may represent the route of one or multiple member signals. In the
   case that one ERO represents several member signals among the total
   member signals, the number of member signals along the route of the
   ERO must be specified.

    (2) Label constraint

   In the case that a PCC doesn't specify the label when requesting a
   label-resctricted path and the PCE is capable of performing the
   route and label assignment computation procedure, the PCE needs to
   be able to specify the label of the path in a PCRep message.

   Wavelength restriction is a typical case of label restriction but is
   only one instance of it. More generally in GMPLS networks label
   switching and selection constraint may apply and a PCC may request a
   PCE to take label constraint into account and return an ERO
   containing the labels or set of label that fulfill the PCC request.



T. Otani et al.         Expires December 2012                 [Page 8]


Internet Drafts       Reqs for GMPLS apps of PCE              June 2012


   The PCReq aspects are covered in section 4.1 in the requirements 6,
   12 and 13.

   (3) Roles of the routes

   When a PCC specifies the protection type of an LSP, the PCE should
   compute the working route and the corresponding protection route(s).
   Therefore, the PCRep should be capable of indicating which one is
   working or protection route.

4.3. GMPLS PCE Management

   PCE related Management Information Bases must consider extensions to
   be satisfied with requirements for GMPLS applications. For
   extensions, [RFC4802] are defined to manage TE database and may be
   referred to accommodate GMPLS TE attributes in the PCE.

5. Security consideration

   PCE extensions to support GMPLS should be considered under the same
   security as current PCE work. This extension will not change the
   underlying security issues.

6. IANA Considerations

   This document has no actions for IANA.

7. Acknowledgement

   The author would like to express the thanks to Shuichi Okamoto for
   their comments.

8. References

8.1. Normative References

   [RFC2119] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to indicate
             requirements levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
             (MPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471,
             January 2003.

   [RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
             (MPLS) Signaling - Resource ReserVation Protocol Traffic
             Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.



T. Otani et al.         Expires December 2012                 [Page 9]


Internet Drafts       Reqs for GMPLS apps of PCE              June 2012


   [RFC3477] K.Kompella,et al,"Signalling Unnumbered Links in Resource
             ReSerVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering(RSVP-TE)",January
             2003.

   [RFC3630] D. Katz et al., "Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to
             OSPF Version 2", RFC3630, September 2003.

   [RFC3945] E. Mannie, et al, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
             Switching Architecture", RFC3945, October, 2004.

   [RFC4202] K. Kompella, and Y. Rekhter, "Routing Extensions in
             Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching",
             RFC4202, Oct. 2005.

   [RFC4203] K. Kompella, and Y. Rekhter, "OSPF Extensions in Support
             of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching", RFC4203,
             Oct. 2005.

   [RFC4328] D. Papadimitriou, Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
             Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical
             Transport Networks Control", RFC4328, January 2006.

   [RFC6387]  Takacs, A., Berger, L., Caviglia, D., Fedyk, D., and J.
             Meuric, "GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional Label
             Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 6387, September 2011.

   [RFC4606] E. Mannie and D. Papadimitriou, "Generalized Multi-
             Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for
             Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous
             Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control", RFC4606, August 2006.

   [RFC4802]   T. Nadeau and A. Farrel, Ed., "Generalized Multiprotocol
             Label Switching (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Management
             Information Base", RFC4802, Feb. 2007.

   [RFC4872] J.P. Lang, Ed., "RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-
             End Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
             Recovery", RFC4872, May 2007.

    [RFC5440] J.P. Vasseur, et al, "Path Computation Element (PCE)
             Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC5440, March 2009.

   [RFC6002] Lou Berger, et al.,"Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Data Channel
             Switching Capable (DCSC) and Channel Set Label Extensions",
             RFC6002, October 2010.




T. Otani et al.         Expires December 2012                [Page 10]


Internet Drafts       Reqs for GMPLS apps of PCE              June 2012


   [RFC6060] Don Fedyk, et al., "Generalized Multiprotocol Label
             Switching (GMPLS) control of Ethernet PBB-TE", RFC6060,
             March 2011.

   [RFC6205] T. Otani, Ed., "Generalized Labels for G.694 Lambda-
             Switching Capable Label Switching Routers", RFC6205, March
             2011

   [RFC6387] Takacs, et. al., "GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional
   Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC6387, September 2011



8.2. Informative References

   [RFC4216] R. Zhan, et al, "MPLS Inter-Autonomous System (AS) Traffic
             Engineering (TE) Requirements", RFC4216, November 2005.

   [RFC4655]                  A. Farrel, et al, "A Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based
               Architecture", RFC4655, Aug., 2006.

   [RFC4657] J. Ash, et al, "Path computation element (PCE)
             communication protocol generic requirements", RFC4657,
             Sept., 2007.

   [RFC4726] A. Farrel, et al, "A framework for inter-domain MPLS
             traffic engineering", RFC4726, November 2006.

   [RFC5394] I. Bryskin et al., "Policy-Enabled Path Computation
             Framework", RFC5394, December 2008.

   [RFC6457] T.Takeda,et al,"PCC-PCE Communication and PCE
             Discovery Requirements for Inter-Layer
             Engineering",RFC6457,December 2011.

   [CSPF]  T. Otani, et al, "Considering Generalized Multiprotocol
             Label Switching Traffic Engineering Attributes During Path
             Computation", draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-cspf-constraints-
             07.txt, Feb., 2008.

   [PCEP-EXT] C.Margaria,et al, "PCEP extensions for GMPLS",draft-ietf-
             pce-gmpls-PCEP-EXTs, in progress.

   [PCE-WSON-REQ] Y.Lee, et al,"PCEP Requirements for WSON Routing and
             Wavelength Assignment",draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-
             wavelength, in progress.



T. Otani et al.         Expires December 2012                [Page 11]


Internet Drafts       Reqs for GMPLS apps of PCE              June 2012


   [OSPF-G709] D.Ceccarelli,et al,"Traffic Engineering Extensions to
             OSPF for Generalized MPLS(GMPLS) Control of Evolving G.709
             OTN Networks", in progress.

   [RSVP-TE-G709] Fatai Zhang,et al,"Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
             Switching(GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for the evolving
             G.709 Optical Transport Network Control", in progress.









































T. Otani et al.         Expires December 2012                [Page 12]


Internet Drafts       Reqs for GMPLS apps of PCE              June 2012


9. Authors' Addresses

   Tomohiro Otani
   KDDI Corporation
   2-3-2 Nishi-shinjuku Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 163-8003 Japan
   Phone:  +81-3-3347-6006
   Email:  tm-otani@kddi.com

   Kenichi Ogaki
   KDDI R&D Laboratories, Inc.
   2-1-15 Ohara Fujimino-shi, Saitama 356-8502 Japan
   Phone:  +81-49-278-7897
   Email:  ogaki@kddilabs.jp

   Diego Caviglia
   Ericsson
   16153 Genova Cornigliano, ITALY
   Phone: +390106003736
   Email: diego.caviglia@ericsson.com

   Fatai Zhang
   Huawei Technologies
   F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base
   Bantian, Longgang District
   Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China
   Phone: +86-755-28972912
   Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com

   Cyril Margaria
   Nokia Siemens Networks
   St Martin Strasse 76
   Munich, 81541
   Germany
   Phone: +49 89 5159 16934
   Email: cyril.margaria@nsn.com


Intellectual Property


   The IETF Trust 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 any IETF Document or the extent to which any license
   under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it



T. Otani et al.         Expires December 2012                [Page 13]


Internet Drafts       Reqs for GMPLS apps of PCE              June 2012


   represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any
   such rights.

   Copies of Intellectual Property 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
   any standard or specification contained in an IETF Document. Please
   address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.

   The definitive version of an IETF Document is that published by, or
   under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of IETF Documents that are
   published by third parties, including those that are translated into
   other languages, should not be considered to be definitive versions
   of IETF Documents. The definitive version of these Legal Provisions
   is that published by, or under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions
   of these Legal Provisions that are published by third parties,
   including those that are translated into other languages, should not
   be considered to be definitive versions of these Legal Provisions.

   For the avoidance of doubt, each Contributor to the IETF Standards
   Process licenses each Contribution that he or she makes as part of
   the IETF Standards Process to the IETF Trust pursuant to the
   provisions of RFC 5378. No language to the contrary, or terms,
   conditions or rights that differ from or are inconsistent with the
   rights and licenses granted under RFC 5378, shall have any effect
   and shall be null and void, whether published or posted by such
   Contributor, or included with or in such Contribution.



Disclaimer of Validity

   All IETF Documents and the information contained therein 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 THEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE




T. Otani et al.         Expires December 2012                [Page 14]


Internet Drafts       Reqs for GMPLS apps of PCE              June 2012


   ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
   FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document. Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
   respect to this document.  Code Components extracted from this
   document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
   Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
   warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.






























T. Otani et al.         Expires December 2012                [Page 15]


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