[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap

CCAMP Working Group                                     JP Vasseur (Ed.)
                                                       Cisco System Inc.
IETF Internet Draft                                     JL Le Roux (Ed.)
                                                          France Telecom




Proposed Status: Standard
Expires: August 2005                                       February 2005


       Routing extensions for discovery of Traffic Engineering Node
                               Capabilities

                  draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-node-cap-00.txt


Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
   patent or IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, and any
   of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with RFC
   3668.

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working
   documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas,
   and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.











Vasseur, Le Roux, et al.                                        [Page 1]


Internet Draft  draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-node-cap-00.txt     February 2005


Abstract

   It is highly desired in several cases, to take into account Traffic
   Engineering (TE) node capabilities during TE LSP path selection, such
   as for instance the capability to act as a branch LSR of a P2MP LSP.
   This requires advertising these capabilities within the IGP.
   For that purpose, this document specifies OSPF and IS-IS traffic
   engineering extensions for the advertisement of control plane and
   data plane traffic engineering node capabilities.



Conventions used in this document

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

Table of Contents

   1.      Contributors................................................3
   2.      Terminology.................................................3
   3.      Introduction................................................4
   4.      TE Node Capability Descriptor...............................4
   4.1.    Description.................................................4
   4.2.    Required Information........................................5
   5.      OSPF TE extensions..........................................6
   5.1.    OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV format...............6
   5.1.1.  The DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV..................................7
   5.1.2.  The CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV...............................8
   5.2.    Elements of Procedure.......................................9
   6.      IS-IS TE Extensions........................................10
   6.1.    IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV format.............10
   6.1.1.  DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV.....................................10
   6.1.2.  CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV..................................11
   6.2.    Elements of procedure......................................12
   7.      Backward compatibility.....................................12
   8.      Security Considerations....................................12
   9.      Intellectual Property Statement............................12
   9.1.    IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement.............................13
   10.     Acknowledgments............................................13
   11.     References.................................................13
   11.1.   Normative references.......................................13
   11.2.   Informative References.....................................14
   12.     Editors' Address...........................................14








Vasseur, Le Roux, et al.                                      [Page 2]


Internet Draft  draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-node-cap-00.txt     February 2005


1. Contributors

   This document was the collective work of several. The text and
   content of this document was contributed by the editors and the
   co-authors listed below (the contact information for the editors
   appears in section 12, and is not repeated below):

   Paul Mabey                   Seisho Yasukawa
   Qwest Communications         NTT
   950 17th street              9-11, Midori-Cho 3-Chome
   Denver, CO 80202             Musashino-Shi, Tokyo 180-8585
   USA                          JAPAN
   Email: pmabey@qwest.com      Email: yasukawa.seisho@lab.ntt.co.jp

   Stefano Previdi              Peter Psenak
   Cisco System, Inc.           Cisco System, Inc.
   Via del Serafico 200         Pegasus Park
   00142 Roma                   DE Kleetlaan 6A
   ITALY                        1831, Diegmen
   Email: sprevidi@cisco.com    BELGIUM
                                Email: ppsenak@cisco.com

2. Terminology


   LSR: Label Switch Router.

   TE LSP: Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path.

   P2MP TE LSP: A TE LSP that has one unique
                ingress LSR and one or more egress LSRs.

   Branch LSR: An LSR on a P2MP LSP that has more than one directly
               connected downstream LSRs.

   Bud-LSR: An LSR on a P2MP LSP, that is an egress, but also has one or
            more directly connected downstream LSRs.
















Vasseur, Le Roux, et al.                                      [Page 3]


Internet Draft  draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-node-cap-00.txt     February 2005


3. Introduction

   MPLS Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) routing ([IS-IS-TE], [OSPF-TE])
   relies on extensions to link state IGP routing protocols ([OSPF],
   [IS-IS]) in order to carry Traffic Engineering (TE) link information
   used for constraint based routing. Further Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
   related routing extensions are defined in [IS-IS-G] and [OSPF-G].

   It is desired to complement these routing extensions in order to
   carry TE node capabilities, in addition to TE link information. These
   TE node capabilities will be taken into account as constraints during
   path selection.
   Indeed, it is useful to advertise data plane TE node capabilities,
   such as, for instance the capability to be a branch LSR or a bud-LSR
   of a P2MP LSP. These capabilities are then taken into account as
   constraints when computing TE LSP paths.
   It is also useful to advertise control plane TE node capabilities
   such as for instance the capability to support GMPLS
   signaling for a packet LSR, or the capability to support P2MP (Point
   to Multipoint) TE LSP signaling.  This allows selecting a path that
   avoids nodes that do not support a given signaling feature, or
   triggering a mechanism to support such nodes. Hence this facilitates
   backward compatibility.

   For that purpose, this document specifies IGP (OSPF and IS-IS)
   traffic engineering node capability TLVs in order to advertise data
   plane and control plane capabilities of a node.

   A new TLV is defined for ISIS and OSPF: the TE Node Capability
   Descriptor TLV, to be carried within:
        - the ISIS Capability TLV ([ISIS-CAP]) for ISIS
        - the Router Information LSA ([OSPF-CAP]), for OSPF.



4. TE Node Capability Descriptor

4.1. Description

   LSRs in a network may have distinct control plane and data plane
   Traffic Engineering capabilities. The TE Node Capability Descriptor
   information defined in this document describes data and control plane
   capabilities of an LSR. Such information can be used for instance
   during path computation so as to avoid nodes that do not support a
   given TE feature either in the control or data plane or to trigger
   procedure to handle these nodes. In some cases, this may also be
   useful to ensure backward compatibility.






Vasseur, Le Roux, et al.                                      [Page 4]


Internet Draft  draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-node-cap-00.txt     February 2005


4.2. Required Information

   The TE Node Capability Descriptor contains two variable length sets
   of bit flags:
        -The Data Plane Capabilities: This a variable length
   set of bit flags where each bit corresponds to a given TE data plane
   capability.
        -The Control Plane Capabilities: This a variable length
   set of bit flags where each bit corresponds to a given TE control
   plane capability.

   Two Data Plane Capabilities are currently defined:
            -B bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR can act
             as a branch node on a P2MP LSP (see [P2MP-REQ]) and [RSVP-
             P2MP]).
            -E bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR can act
             as a bud LSR on a P2MP LSP, i.e. an LSR that is both
             transit and egress.

   Three Control Plane Capabilities are currently defined:
            -M bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR supports
             MPLS-TE signaling ([RSVP-TE]).
            -G bit: when set this flag indicates that the LSR supports
             GMPLS signaling ([RSVP-G]).
            -P bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR supports
             P2MP MPLS-TE signaling ([RSVP-P2MP]).

   Note that new capabilities may be added in the future if required.

























Vasseur, Le Roux, et al.                                      [Page 5]


Internet Draft  draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-node-cap-00.txt     February 2005


5. OSPF TE extensions

5.1. OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV format

   The OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is made of various non
   ordered sub-TLVs.
   The format of the OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV and its sub-
   TLVs is the same as the TLV format used by the Traffic Engineering
   Extensions to OSPF [OSPF-TE]. That is, the TLV is composed of 2
   octets for the type, 2 octets specifying the TLV length and a value
   field.
   The TLV is padded to four-octet alignment; padding is not included in
   the length field (so a three octet value would have a length of
   three, but the total size of the TLV would be eight octets).  Nested
   TLVs are also 32-bit aligned.  Unrecognized types are ignored.  All
   types between 32768 and 65535 are reserved for vendor-specific
   extensions.  All other undefined type codes are reserved for future
   assignment by IANA.

   The OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV has the following format:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |              Type             |             Length            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   //                            sub-TLVs                          //
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


         Type     To be defined by IANA
         Length   Variable
         Value    This comprises one or more sub-TLVs

   Currently two sub-TLVs are defined:
            Sub-TLV type  Length               Name
                1      variable     DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV
                2      variable     CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV

   Any non recognized sub-TLV MUST be silently ignored.
   More sub-TLVs could be added in the future to handle new
   capabilities.

   The OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is carried within an OSPF
   router information LSA which is defined in [OSPF-CAP].







Vasseur, Le Roux, et al.                                      [Page 6]


Internet Draft  draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-node-cap-00.txt     February 2005


5.1.1. The DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV

   The DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV is a series of bit flags, where each bit
   correspond to a data plane TE node capability, and has a variable
   length.

   The format of the DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV is as follows:


       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |              Type             |             Length            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |             Data Plane TE Node Capabilities                   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


         Type     Set to 1.
         Length   It is set to N x 4 octets.  N starts
                  from 1 and can be increased when there is a need.
                  Each 4
                  octets are referred to as a capability flag.
         Value    This comprises one or more capability flags.
                  For each 4 octets, the bits are indexed from the most
                  Significant to the least significant, where each bit
                  represents one data plane TE node capability.  When
                  the first 32 capabilities are defined, a new
                  capability flag will be used to accommodate the next
                  capability.

   The following bits in the first capability flag have been assigned:


     Bit       Capabilities

      0      B bit: P2MP Branch Node capability: When set this indicates
             that the LSR can act as a branch node on a P2MP LSP
             [P2MP-REQ];
      1      E bit: P2MP Bud-LSR capability: When set, this indicates
             that the LSR can act as a bud LSR on a P2MP LSP, i.e. an
             LSR that is both transit and egress [P2MP-REQ];

     2-31    Future assignments.









Vasseur, Le Roux, et al.                                      [Page 7]


Internet Draft  draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-node-cap-00.txt     February 2005






5.1.2. The CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV

   The CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV is a series of bit flags, where each
   bit correspond to a control plane TE node capability, and has a
   variable length.

   The format of the CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV is as follows:


       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |              Type             |             Length            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |             Control Plane TE Node Capabilities                |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


         Type     Set to 1.
         Length   It is set to N x 4 octets.  N starts
                  from 1 and can be increased when there is a need.
                  Each 4 octets are referred to as a capability flag.
         Value    This comprises one or more capability flags.
                  For each 4 octets, the bits are indexed from the most
                  Significant to the least significant, where each bit
                  represents one control plane TE node capability.  When
                  the first 32 capabilities are defined, a new
                  capability flag will be used to accommodate the next
                  capability.

   The following bits in the first capability flag have been assigned:

       Bit          Capabilities

        0          M bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports
                   MPLS-TE signaling ([RSVP-TE]).

        1          G bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports
                   GMPLS signaling ([RSVP-G]).

        2          P bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports
                   P2MP MPLS-TE signaling ([RSVP-P2MP]).

       3-31     Future assignments





Vasseur, Le Roux, et al.                                      [Page 8]


Internet Draft  draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-node-cap-00.txt     February 2005


5.2. Elements of Procedure

   The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is carried within an OSPF
   Router information opaque LSA (opaque type of 4, opaque ID of 0)
   which is defined in [OSPF-CAP].

   A router MUST originate a new OSPF router information LSA whenever
   the content of any of the carried TLVs changes or whenever
   required by the regular OSPF procedure (LSA refresh (every
   LSRefreshTime)).

   The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV advertises capabilities that
   are taken into account as constraints during path selection. Hence
   its flooding scope is area-local, and MUST be carried within a type
   10 router information LSA.

   TE Node Capability Descriptor TLVs are OPTIONAL. When an OSPF LSA
   does not contain any TE Node capability Descriptor TLV, this means
   that the TE Capabilities of that LSR are unknown.

   Note that a change in any of these capabilities MAY trigger CSPF
   computation, but MUST not trigger normal SPF computation.































Vasseur, Le Roux, et al.                                      [Page 9]


Internet Draft  draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-node-cap-00.txt     February 2005


6. IS-IS TE Extensions

6.1. IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV format

   The IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is made of various non
   ordered sub-TLVs.

   The format of the IS-IS TE Node Capability TLV and its sub-TLVs is
   the same as the TLV format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions
   to IS-IS [ISIS-TE]. That is, the TLV is composed of 1 octet for the
   type, 1 octet specifying the TLV length and a value field.

   The IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV has the following format:

      TYPE: To be assigned by IANA
      LENGTH: Variable, from 3 to 255
      VALUE: set of one or more sub-TLVs

   Currently two sub-TLVs are defined:
               Sub-TLV type  Length               Name
                  1         variable     DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV
                  2         variable     CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV

   Any non recognized sub-TLV MUST be silently ignored.
   More sub-TLVs could be added in the future to handle new
   capabilities.

   The IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is carried within an IS-
   IS CAPABILITY TLV which is defined in [ISIS-CAP].

6.1.1. DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV

   The DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV is a series of bit flags, where each bit
   correspond to a data plane TE node capability, and has a variable
   length.

   The DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV has the following format:

      TYPE: It is set to 1
      LENGTH: It is set to N. N starts from 1 and can be increased when
              there is a need. Each octet is referred to as a
              capability flag.
      VALUE: This comprises one or more data plane TE node capability
             flags.









Vasseur, Le Roux, et al.                                     [Page 10]


Internet Draft  draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-node-cap-00.txt     February 2005





   The following bits in the first capability flag have been assigned:

   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |B|E| Reserved  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   B bit: P2MP Branch node capability: When set this indicates
          that the LSR can act as a branch node on a P2MP LSP
          [P2MP-REQ]
   E bit: P2MP bud-LSR capability: When set, this indicates
          that the LSR can act as a bud LSR on a P2MP LSP, i.e. an
          LSR that is both transit and egress [P2MP-REQ].


6.1.2. CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV

   The CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV is a series of bit flags, where each
   bit correspond to a control plane TE node capability, and has a
   variable length.

   The CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV has the following format:

      TYPE: It is set to 2
      LENGTH: It is set to N. N starts from 1 and can be increased
              when there is a need. Each octet is referred to as a
              capability flag.
      VALUE: This comprises one or more control plane TE node capability
             flags.

   The following bits in the first capability flag have been assigned:

   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |M|G|P|Reserved |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

    -M bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports MPLS-TE
            signaling ([RSVP-TE]).

    -G bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports GMPLS signaling
            ([RSVP-G]).

    -P bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports P2MP MPLS-TE
            signaling ([RSVP-P2MP]).





Vasseur, Le Roux, et al.                                     [Page 11]


Internet Draft  draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-node-cap-00.txt     February 2005



6.2. Elements of procedure

   The TE Node Capability TLV is carried within an IS-IS Router
   CAPABILITY TLV defined in [IS-IS-CAP].

   An IS-IS router MUST originate a new IS-IS LSP whenever the content
   of any of the TE Node Capability TLV changes or whenever required by
   the regular IS-IS procedure (LSP refresh).

   The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV advertises capabilities that
   are taken into account as constraints during path selection. Hence
   its flooding is area-local, and MUST be carried within an IS-IS
   CAPABILITY TLV having the S flag cleared.

   TE Node Capability Descriptor TLVs are OPTIONAL. When a IS-IS LSP
   does not contain any TE Node capability Descriptor TLV, this means
   that the TE Capabilities of that LSR are unknown.

   Note that a change in any of these capabilities MAY trigger CSPF
   computation, but MUST not trigger normal SPF computation.


7. Backward compatibility

   The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLVs defined in this document do
   not introduce any interoperability issue. For OSPF, a router not
   supporting the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV SHOULD just silently
   ignore the TLV as specified in RFC2370. For IS-IS a router not
   supporting the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV SHOULD just silently
   ignore the TLV.

8. Security Considerations

   No new security issues are raised in this document.


9. 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

Vasseur, Le Roux, et al.                                     [Page 12]


Internet Draft  draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-node-cap-00.txt     February 2005


   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.


9.1. IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
   patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
   and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
   RFC 3668.


10. Acknowledgments

   We would like to thank Benoit Fondeviole for its useful comments and
   suggestions.


11. References

11.1. Normative references

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

   [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.

   [OSPF-v2] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998.

   [IS-IS] "Intermediate System to Intermediate System Intra-Domain
   Routing Exchange Protocol " ISO 10589.

   [IS-IS-IP] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
   dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990.

   [OSPF-TE] Katz, D., Yeung, D., Kompella, K., "Traffic Engineering
   Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September 2003.

   [IS-IS-TE] Li, T., Smit, H., "IS-IS extensions for Traffic
   Engineering", RFC 3784, June 2004.



Vasseur, Le Roux, et al.                                     [Page 13]


Internet Draft  draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-node-cap-00.txt     February 2005


   [OSPF-CAP] Lindem, A., Shen, N., Aggarwal, R., Shaffer, S., Vasseur,
   J.P., "Extensions to OSPF for advertising Optional Router
   Capabilities", draft-ietf-ospf-cap-05.txt, work in progress.

   [IS-IS-CAP] Vasseur, J.P. et al., "IS-IS extensions for advertising
   router information", draft-ietf-isis-caps-00.txt, work in progress.

   [RSVP-TE] Awduche, D., et. al., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
   tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.

   [RSVP-G] Berger, L, et. al., "GMPLS Signaling RSVP-TE extensions",
   RFC 3473, January 2003.


11.2. Informative References

   [GMPLS-RTG] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "Routing Extensions in Support
   of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching", draft-ietf-ccamp-
   gmpls-routing-09.txt (work in progress)

   [OSPF-G] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "OSPF extensions in support of
   Generalized Multi-protocol Label Switching", draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-
   gmpls-extensions-12.txt, work in progress.

   [IS-IS-G] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "IS-IS extensions in support of
   Generalized Multi-protocol Label Switching", draft-ietf-isis-gmpls-
   extensions-19.txt, work in progress.

   [P2MP-REQ] Yasukawa, S., et. al., "Signaling Requirements for Point
   to Multipoint Traffic Engineered MPLS LSPs", draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-
   sig-requirement-00.txt, work in progress.

   [RSVP-P2MP] Aggarwal, Papadimitriou, Yasukawa, et. al. "Extensions to
   RSVP-TE for point-to-multipoint TE LSPs", draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-
   p2mp-01.txt, work in progress.


12. Editors' Address

   Jean-Philippe Vasseur
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   300 Beaver Brook Road
   Boxborough , MA - 01719
   USA
   Email: jpv@cisco.com

   Jean-Louis Le Roux
   France Telecom
   2, avenue Pierre-Marzin
   22307 Lannion Cedex
   FRANCE
   Email: jeanlouis.leroux@francetelecom.com

Vasseur, Le Roux, et al.                                     [Page 14]


Internet Draft  draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-node-cap-00.txt     February 2005





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.





































Vasseur, Le Roux, et al.                                     [Page 15]


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