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

Versions: 00 draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp

                          Soft State Switching
           A Proposal to Extend RSVP for Switching RSVP Flows

                  <draft-viswanathan-mpls-rsvp-00.txt>



Status of This Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft.  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."

   To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the
   "1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow
   Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), nic.nordu.net (Europe),
   munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim), ds.internic.net (US East Coast), or
   ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast).


Abstract

   This memo describes a mechanism for establishing a switched path with
   guaranteed Quality of Service for RSVP [1] flows in a MultiProtocol
   Label Switching (MPLS) environment.  It proposes an extension to the
   RSVP protocol that allows the establishment of a sequence of label
   switched hops along the hop-by-hop routed path by enabling adjacent
   nodes to exchange MPLS labels [11].  The labels may correspond to
   information that identifies a layer 2 virtual connection; for
   example, the VPI/VCI value in the case of an ATM-based
   infrastructure.



Viswanathan, et al.        Expires: January 1998                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft             Soft State Switching              August 1997


1. Introduction

   A Label Switching Router (LSR) is a label switching node that has an
   IP Control Point (IP-CP) and implements an IP label switching
   technology [2-4].  LSRs form adjacencies using a well-known label
   switched path (LSP), also called the default path, that terminates at
   the adjacent LSR's IP-CP.  This hop-by-hop LSP connectivity gives a
   network of LSRs the same nature as any ubiquitous IP internet.  The
   objective is to label switch RSVP flows in such an environment.

   This document proposes an extension to RSVP that introduces new
   objects to the existing RSVP messages.  Using these objects, each
   downstream LSR provides its neighboring upstream LSR with the label
   on which it wishes to receive a RSVP flow.  In an ATM-based LSR
   environment, this label would correspond to a VPI/VCI value for the
   ATM virtual circuit on which the LSR wishes to receive traffic from
   the RSVP flow.  Then, using an approach similar to those outlined in
   [2], [3], and [4], the labels are spliced hop-by-hop to form an
   ingress-to-egress LSP.  The data from the RSVP flow then traverses
   this LSP, and the RSVP signaling messages are forwarded hop-by-hop
   via default paths.  By moving RSVP flows from the hop-by-hop routed
   path to a dedicated ingress-to-egress LSP, it is possible to leverage
   the QoS capabilities of the underlying switching technology to
   provide the type of service desired for the reserved flow.

   The memo proposes a "one label per flow" approach, where a flow is
   synonymous with a particular sender (source address/source port) and
   session (destination address/protocol/destination port).  It is
   assumed here that the LSRs on the edge of a MPLS network can either
   auto-learn or are configured to indicate that they are edge LSRs (on
   a per interface basis).


2. Soft State Switching

   In soft state switching, the goal is to switch packets from a RSVP
   flow at layer 2 instead of having to forward them hop-by-hop as in
   conventional IP routers.  By doing so, it is possible to leverage the
   high-performance switching and Quality of Service capabilities of the
   layer 2 technology.  This is achieved when all neighboring LSRs along
   the routed path can exchange labels for establishing the switched
   path for RSVP flows.  Then, the labels may be "spliced" hop-by-hop
   to set up an end-to-end (ingress-to-egress) LSP along the preferred
   routed path.  By splicing, we refer to the process by which an
   incoming label is associated with an outgoing label at layer 2,
   without traffic encapsulated by the incoming label being processed at
   the network layer.  For example, this can be achieved in ATM switches
   by establishing this association in the ATM switching tables.  Once



Viswanathan, et al.        Expires: January 1998                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft             Soft State Switching              August 1998


   the splicing is complete, the default path carrying best effort
   traffic between adjacent LSRs provides the IP forwarding path.  The
   RSVP signaling messages are forwarded on the default path.

   The labels are assumed to have only unidirectional significance.  In
   other words, there exists a separate label space for each direction
   of flow on a link.  Moreover, the downstream LSR is chosen to be the
   label space owner (allocator) on a link.  The single owner approach
   keeps the label usage simple and manageable.  If a label space had
   more than one owner, it would require that the owners synchronize
   their use of the labels or the space would have to be partitioned
   amongst the owners.  For flexibility, the proposed extension to RSVP
   also supports the concept of "upstream on demand" allocation as
   described in [3].  In this method, the upstream LSR allocates labels
   when demanded by a downstream LSR.  This enables co-existence with
   other protocols that consume labels.


3. Motivation

   In this section, we discuss why the RSVP protocol is ideal for
   establishing a label switched path for reserved flows.

   One motivating factor for using RSVP is that mapping the network-
   layer QoS request to a layer 2 virtual connection is simple.  The
   RESV message carries the QoS requested by the receiver(s) of the RSVP
   flow.  For example, this could correspond to one of the Integrated
   Service classes described in [6-8].  This QoS information is needed
   when layer 2 labels are set up and spliced; i.e., when the resource
   reservations are made.  Otherwise, the LSP establishment protocol
   would have to carry its own QoS entity and/or map the label setup to
   RSVP tables at each LSR hop.

   Another motivating reason for extending RSVP is multicast support.
   RSVP is designed to scale well for multicast sessions requiring
   resource reservation.  RSVP also allows receivers to join existing
   sessions with different QoS requirements.  An independent LSP
   establishment protocol should be able to handle such session "joins"
   equally well.

   With the RSVP protocol the receivers can make sender selection
   through the provision of different filter styles.  In this, multiple
   sender flows (as chosen by the receivers) in a RSVP session can be
   associated with a single reservation.  In other words, sender flows
   in a RSVP session can be merged into a single downstream reservation.
   A new LSP establishment protocol would have to support a similar
   mechanism for seamless interoperability with the RSVP protocol.




Viswanathan, et al.        Expires: January 1998                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft             Soft State Switching              August 1997


   Finally, any mechanism for setup of LSPs would, in any case, require
   extensive interfacing with the RSVP protocol and/or its state tables.

   Due to these reasons, it is best if RSVP can be extended without
   changing its existing mechanics, to provide support for setting up
   the switched path for RSVP flows.  This need not be viewed as
   "piggy-backing" another protocol on RSVP, but rather, a natural
   extension to RSVP to provide QoS in a MPLS environment.


4. L2 Label Exchange Mechanism

   The proposed extension to RSVP calls for adding a new object to carry
   MPLS label information within RESV, PATH, and RESVERR messages.  The
   egress LSR, say LSR A, (i.e. the "last" node in the MPLS environment,
   or the LSR through which the RSVP flow exits the MPLS environment)
   will place this object in any RESV message that it sends to the PHOP
   LSR for a flow (as stored in the Path state for this flow) -- call
   this LSR B.  The RESV message is sent to LSR B via the default routed
   path.

   If LSR B rejects the reservation (i.e., if the reservation is
   rejected by either policy or admission control, or due to an error),
   it then forwards a RESVERR message with the appropriate error code to
   LSR A.  The RESVERR message includes the MPLS label object received
   from LSR A (RESVERR nack).  Receipt of the RESVERR nack indicates
   that the upstream LSR will not forward the reserved flow on the
   requested LSP.  In the event that this occurs, LSR A may choose to
   release its reservation or it may choose to classify and forward
   packets received on the default path from LSR B at the network layer.

   If LSR B accepts the reservation, it will use the label in the RESV
   message to setup a LSP to LSR A (in this case, the egress LSR) on the
   outgoing interface.  The QoS for this LSP corresponds to a mapping of
   the Integrated Service class specified in the RESV message to an
   appropriate set of QoS values for the layer 2 technology.  LSR B will
   forward a PATH message for the reserved flow to LSR A which includes
   the MPLS label object allocated by LSR A (PATH ack).  This MPLS label
   object will also be included in all subsequent PATH messages for the
   reserved flow sent to LSR A while the reservation remains in place.

   LSR B will then choose a new label on the incoming interface through
   which the RSVP flow enters the LSR, and send this label to its own
   PHOP, LSR C, by passing the new MPLS label object in a RESV message.
   LSR B may optimistically choose to splice the label on the incoming
   interface from LSR C to the label on the outgoing interface to LSR A
   by modifying its layer 2 label swap table, or it may choose to wait
   for the receipt of a PATH ack from LSR C.  If LSR C accepts the



Viswanathan, et al.        Expires: January 1998                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft             Soft State Switching              August 1997


   reservation then it will forward a PATH ack to LSR B.  If LSR C
   rejects the reservation, it will then send a RESVERR nack to LSR B.
   LSR B has the option of releasing its reservation (by transmitting a
   RESVERR nack downstream to LSR A) or of classifying the packets of
   the reserved flow on the default path from LSR C and forwarding them
   on the previously established QoS LSP to LSR A, while sending a
   RESVERR message without the label object to LSR A.

   In the event of success at each PHOP LSR, the RESV will eventually
   reach the ingress LSR (the LSR through which the RSVP flow enters the
   MPLS environment).  The ingress LSR will make necessary classifier
   entries to forward packets for this flow through the LSP identified
   by the label in the RESV message received from downstream.  An
   ingress LSR will delete the MPLS label object before forwarding a
   RESV message to any of its PHOP nodes.  The labels used for a RSVP
   reservation are released whenever the RSVP reservation is torn down
   or is timed-out.

   Using this process, an end-to-end switched path is established for an
   RSVP flow through a MPLS network.  The data packets from the RSVP
   flow are forwarded via this switched path, while RSVP control
   messages continue to use the default paths between LSRs.


5. Partial QoS Paths

   The procedure described in Section 4 must be clarified in the event
   that the reserved traffic from a sender (source address/port) is
   transported initially across a LSP from the ingress to the egress LSR
   that has been established by an IP switching protocol [2-4, 9].  In
   this case, the best-effort packets are not forwarded along the hop-
   by-hop default path and processed at the network layer within each
   intermediate LSR, but are instead forwarded along a series of spliced
   label switched hops, and hence are not normally available for packet
   classification.  If a reservation should succeed all the way back to
   the ingress LSR for a reserved flow, that LSR will classify the
   packets from the flow and move them onto the new ingress-to-egress
   QoS LSP.

   However, if the reservation succeeds on some of the LSRs on the
   reverse path from the egress but not all the way back to the ingress,
   then QoS for the flow cannot be achieved on the path through the LSRs
   which accepted the reservation unless the farthest upstream LSR which
   accepted the reservation unsplices the best-effort LSP, classifies
   the packets of the reserved flow, and forwards them on the QoS LSP to
   the egress LSR.  Note that the default behavior of RSVP is to allow
   partial QoS paths from the receiver back towards the sender by
   allowing reservations which have succeeded at a node to remain in



Viswanathan, et al.        Expires: January 1998                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft             Soft State Switching              August 1997


   place in the event that the reservation fails further upstream.

   Because it is likely that some LSRs will lack sufficient network-
   layer forwarding capability to unsplice and route many best-effort
   LSPs simultaneously, the behavior of a LSR which has accepted a
   reservation, established a QoS LSP on the appropriate downstream
   interface(s), but subsequently receives a RESVERR nack from upstream
   should be configurable.  In the event that the LSR chooses to
   classify the reserved flow at the network layer by unsplicing the
   best-effort LSP, there are no required changes to the protocol
   exchange described in Section 4.  However, if the LSR chooses to
   release the reservation, then it should transmit a RESVERR nack
   downstream and establish blockade state for the reservation.
   Subsequent reservations for the flow with an equal or greater
   flowspec should be rejected and blockaded until the blockade timer
   expires.  This prevents the establishment of a potentially unused QoS
   LSP through the LSR until the blockade timer for the reservation
   expires.  Reservations for the flow with a strictly smaller flowspec
   can be accepted and propagated upstream.  Receipt of a RESVERR nack
   should be taken as definitive, even if it immediately follows (or
   precedes) a PATH ack.

   Another alternative is to continue to propagate RESV messages and
   labels all the way to the ingress LSR, with an indication that the
   reservation has failed somewhere downstream, and that QoS need not
   be provided for the upstream segments of the LSP.  These RESV
   messages would terminate at the ingress LSR without generating a
   RESVERR message on any node upstream of the reservation failure.
   This approach would entail modifications to the RSVP message
   processing rules.


6. Merging

   RSVP scales by merging reservation requests as they propagate
   upstream towards senders, and by merging QoS handling state as the
   data flows propagate downstream towards the receivers.  The ability
   to perform merging in a LSR environment is dependent on the switching
   capabilities of the LSRs.

   There are several switching technologies available today (ATM, Frame
   Relay etc.) and perhaps more in the future.  Moreover, the
   capabilities of a switch of a certain technology vary from vendor to
   vendor.  Three basic characteristics are identified that determine
   how the underlying switching technology can be used in conjunction
   with this proposal to address merging of flows under the appropriate
   environment.  They are:




Viswanathan, et al.        Expires: January 1998                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft             Soft State Switching              August 1997


      o  Attribute A: Can correctly merge several upstream LSPs into a
         single downstream LSP ("VC merge").  Frame switches are
         typically able to do this in a straightforward manner.
         However, for ATM switches without appropriate functionality
         built in, cells from different AAL SDUs may become interleaved
         on the outgoing VC (LSP), thus corrupting the higher-layer
         information.

      o  Attribute B: Can treat a set of labels as a single entity for
         QoS purposes.  A switch with this property is able to treat all
         traffic from a set of labels in a like manner for purposes of
         scheduling, fair queueing etc.  For example, an ATM switch that
         performs per-class queueing would assign all the VCs from a
         given set to a particular class.  Then, cells from all the VCs
         in the sets would receive the QoS corresponding to that class.

      o  Attribute C: Can demultiplex senders flows in a single LSP into
         a separate LSP for a sender.  For example, using the label
         stack for L2 tunneling [3,4].

   One logical candidate for flow merging would be support for shared
   explicit and wildcard reservations, where resources are shared among
   a set of multiple senders.  The difficulty this poses is the
   potential need to demultiplex senders from the merged flow for
   downstream receivers which have made reservations for only a subset
   of the senders, as described in [10].  Merging of multiple sender
   LSPs into a single LSP (Attribute A) requires support for Attribute C
   in the LSRs to permit sender demultiplexing.  Support for Attribute B
   permits LSRs to share QoS resources among a group of per-sender LSPs
   while still facilitating sender demultiplexing.


7. Multicast Support

   7.1 Packet Replication

   In order to support multicast sessions, at split points within the
   MPLS network, where data from upstream LSRs splits into multiple
   downstream flows, the LSR can perform the required duplication (at
   layer 2) of packets by utilizing the hardware multicast capability
   (for example, point-to-multipoint VC) of the switch, if available.
   Otherwise, the flow has to be processed at the network layer and
   multicast in the normal manner.  Note that network layer forwarding
   is interoperable with all switch types.

   7.2 Packet Duplication

   In configurations where a per-source or shared multicast tree is



Viswanathan, et al.        Expires: January 1998                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft             Soft State Switching              August 1997


   mapped to a point-to-multipoint LSP rooted at an ingress LSR and
   terminating at each egress LSR with one or more downstream receivers,
   packet duplication can occur if receivers make a reservation for a
   particular flow initially being carried on the multicast LSP.  This
   occurs because the flow's packets are carried on both the best-effort
   and QoS LSP, which are delivered to each egress LSR on the multicast
   tree.  This problem can be avoided if the packets of the reserved
   flow are removed from the best-effort multicast LSP and carried only
   on the QoS LSP.

   7.3 Unreserved Receivers

   When none of the receivers have made a reservation, the multicast
   session may flow through the default multicast LSP as best-effort
   traffic.  But as soon as a receiver makes a reservation, and packets
   from the reserved flow are removed from the best-effort LSP, the data
   flow may stop to receivers that have not made a reservation.  The
   receivers without a reservation only get PATH messages but no data
   (even at best-effort).  This problem can be addressed in several
   different ways determined by the switch architecture.

   This problem can be avoided for switches that support Attribute A.
   They can add the default best-effort LSP for the (source/)group as a
   branch in the point-to-multipoint per-flow QoS LSP by merging the QoS
   LSP back onto the best-effort LSP on those branches of the tree where
   there are no downstream receivers.  If the switch architecture allows
   adding the local IP-CP to the point-to-multipoint QoS LSP, then the
   IP-CP can multicast the packets only to those interfaces from which
   there is no reservation but which are listed in the multicast table.

   If the switch architecture does not support Attribute A, and can not
   efficiently perform the multicast forwarding in the IP-CP, then one
   approach is to build the per-flow QoS LSP to all egress LSRs on the
   multicast tree (whether they forwarded a RESV or not).  The QoS on
   each branch of this point-to-multipoint LSP would be configured based
   on the amount of resources reserved on that branch.  For best-effort
   branches, a UBR-like QoS would be used.  The LSP construction could
   be performed under the control of the ingress LSR rooting the
   multicast tree.  Another way to construct the LSP is to use a PATH
   message to perform the LSP establishment from the node downstream of
   which there are interfaces through which no reservation has been
   received.  This would be initiated whenever there is at least one
   reservation in place at the node for the RSVP flow.  This may not
   work in environments where upstream label allocation is not
   permitted.






Viswanathan, et al.        Expires: January 1998                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft             Soft State Switching              August 1997


   7.4 Shared Media Label Allocation

   This memo describes a RSVP extension for the MPLS environment where
   the downstream LSR is the label space owner.  As discussed in [5] and
   [10], this can lead to an allocation deadlock if the downstream
   receivers on a shared media subnet cannot agree on the value for the
   label.  One approach suggested in [10] is to permit a receiver to
   suggest a label by passing one upstream in a RESV message, but to
   allow the upstream node to select the definitive label and pass it
   downstream within a PATH ack.

   Another alternative is to support upstream on demand allocation.
   In this case, a receiver forwards a RESV message using a NULL MPLS
   label object to indicate a request for label allocation.  The
   upstream LSR will respond with a label for the RSVP flow in the PATH
   message to the downstream neighbors.  The downstream receivers are
   responsible for using the label selected by the upstream node, and
   should include this label in all subsequent RESV messages.  In the
   event that the label selected upstream is out-of-range for a
   particular receiver, then the receiver can forward a new RESV message
   with a NULL MPLS label object to trigger a new label allocation.
   Note that a PATHERR message is not suitable for communicating this
   error since it propagates all the way back to the sender.

   The flexibility of upstream on demand label allocation is also useful
   in non-shared media environments as it allows co-existence with other
   IP switching protocols.


8. TTL Decrement

   When IP packets flow through a switched path, the TTL value in the IP
   header cannot be decremented.  The decrementing of the TTL value is
   used to delete packets in a routing loop to avoid/reduce congestion.
   For this purpose, the proposed LSR Hop Count Object carries a hop-
   count that counts the number of consecutive LSR hops.  The LSRs
   increment the hop-count only if there is a switched path for that
   sender flow through that LSR.  All LSRs maintain the hop count in the
   Path state.  Only the egress LSR on which the LSP terminates would use
   the count to decrement the TTL on packets for that sender flow.  The
   LSRs of a switching technology that have a TTL equivalent in the layer
   2 header may choose not to use the LSR Hop Count Object.


9. Adjacency

   LSR neighbors need some mechanism to establish adjacencies.  This is
   required because the neighbors need to exchange the label range for



Viswanathan, et al.        Expires: January 1998                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft             Soft State Switching              August 1997


   correct label allocation.  They also need to elect the label
   allocator.  The current version of this memo does not propose any
   extension to the RSVP protocol for this mechanism.  It is assumed
   that adjacency would be established by another protocol (as proposed
   in [2], [3] or [4]) and such information would be made available to
   the RSVP module.  In the absence of such a mechanism the LSRs would
   have to be configured with the required information to operate as
   described in this memo.


10. Object Formats

   This section describes the object formats for the proposed extension.
   The label objects for ATM LSRs are defined below.  Label formats for
   additional link-layer media will be proposed in a future revision of
   this memo.

   o  LSR HOP COUNT object: Class = x, C-Type = 1

             +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
             |  Hop Count  |                Reserved                 |
             +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

        Hop Count
             Counts the length (in LSR hops) of the switched path.

   o  NULL Label Object: Class = y, C-Type = 1

   o  ATM RESV Label object: Class = y, C-Type = 2

             +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
             |               IPv4 SrcAddress (4 bytes)               |
             +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
             |    //////   |    //////   |          SrcPort          |
             +-------+-----+-------------+-------------+-------------+
             | Flags |       VPI         |            VCI            |
             +-------+-------------------+-------------+-------------+
             //                                                     //
             +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
             |               IPv4 SrcAddress (4 bytes)               |
             +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
             |    //////   |    //////   |          SrcPort          |
             +-------+-----+-------------+-------------+-------------+
             | Flags |       VPI         |            VCI            |
             +-------+-------------------+-------------+-------------+

        IPv4 SrcAddress
             IPv4 address of the sender.



Viswanathan, et al.        Expires: January 1998               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft             Soft State Switching              August 1997


        Flags - 4 bits
             0x01 - Implies that the reservation is not in place in the
             node forwarding the RESVERR message and that the reserved
             traffic is not being forwarded via the VC (RESVERR nack).

        VPI - 12 bits
             Virtual Path Identifier.  If less than 12 bits are
             significant, then it is right justified in this field.

        VCI - 16 bits
             Virtual Circuit Identifier.  If less than 16 bits are
             significant, then it is right justified in this field.

   o  ATM PATH Label object: Class = y, C-Type = 3

             +-------+-------------------+-------------+-------------+
             | Flags |       VPI         |            VCI            |
             +-------+-------------------+-------------+-------------+

        Flags - 4 bits
             0x01 - Implies that the PATH message is in response to an
             upstream on demand label allocation and may not be
             propagated any further.

             0x02 - Implies that the PATH message is in response to a
             RESV message carrying a RESV Label object (PATH ack) and
             may not be propagated any further.

        VPI - 12 bits
             Virtual Path Identifier.  If less than 12 bits are
             significant, then it is right justified in this field.

        VCI - 16 bits
             Virtual Circuit Identifier.  If less than 16 bits are
             significant, then it is right justified in this field.

   The IPv6 extension and error codes will be defined in a later
   revision of this memo.

   The reader may have noticed that the new ATM RESV Label object has
   duplicated information already present in the FILTER_SPEC object.
   Another approach could be to extend the FILTER_SPEC object definition
   to carry the link-layer labels or insert the label object following
   the FILTER_SPEC object.







Viswanathan, et al.        Expires: January 1998               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft             Soft State Switching              August 1997


11. Security Considerations

   Security considerations are not discussed in this memo.


12. Acknowledgements

   The authors wish to acknowledge Shailendra Bhatnagar, Nancy Feldman,
   Liang Li, Steve Nadas, and Bruce Sinclair for their input.


13. References

   [1]  R. Braden, L. Zhang, S. Berson, S. Herzog, S. Jamin, Resource
        ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional
        Specification.  Internet Draft, draft-ietf-rsvp-spec-16,
        June 1997.

   [2]  P. Newman, W. L. Edwards, R. Hinden, E. Hoffman, F. Ching Liaw,
        T. Lyon, G. Minshall, Ipsilon Flow Management Protocol
        Specification for IPv4, Version 1.0. Internet RFC 1953,
        May 1996.

   [3]  Y. Rekhter, B. Davie, D. Katz, E. Rosen, G. Swallow, D.
        Farinacci, Tag Switching Architecture - Overview. Internet
        Draft, draft-rekhter-tagswitch-arch-00.txt, January 1997.

   [4]  A. Viswanathan, N. Feldman, R. Boivie, R. Woundy, ARIS:
        Aggregated Route-Based IP Switching. Internet Draft,
        draft-viswanathan-aris-overview-00.txt, March 1997.

   [5]  D. Farinacci, Partitioning Tag Space among Multicast Routers on
        a Common Subnet. Internet Draft,
        draft-farinacci-multicast-tag-part-00.txt, December 1996.

   [6]  S. Shenker, C. Partridge, R. Guerin, Specification of Guaranteed
        Quality of Service. Internet Draft,
        draft-ietf-intserv-guaranteed-svc-08.txt, February 1997.

   [7]  J. Wroclawski, Specification of the Controlled-Load Network
        Element Service. Internet Draft,
        draft-ietf-intserv-ctrl-load-svc-05.txt, May 1997.

   [8]  F. Baker, R. Guerin, D. Kandlur, Specification of Committed Rate
        Quality of Service. Internet Draft,
        draft-ietf-intserv-commit-rate-svc-00.txt, June 1996.

   [9]  K. Nagami, Y. Katsube, Y. Shobatake, A. Mogi, S. Matsuzawa,



Viswanathan, et al.        Expires: January 1998               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft             Soft State Switching              August 1997


        T. Jinmei, H. Esaki, Flow Attribute Notification Protocol (FANP)
        Specification, Internet Draft, draft-rfced-info-nagami-00.txt,
        February 1997.

  [10]  B. Davie, Y. Rekhter, E. Rosen, Use of Label Switching With
        RSVP, Internet Draft, draft-davie-mpls-rsvp-00.txt, May 1997.

  [11]  R. Callon, P. Doolan, N. Feldman, A. Fredette, G. Swallow,
        A. Viswanathan, A Framework for Multiprotocol Label Switching,
        Internet Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-framework-00.txt, May 1997.


Author's Address

   Arun Viswanathan
   IBM Corporation
   17 Skyline Drive
   Hawthorne, NY 10532
   Phone: +1 (914) 784-3273
   Email: arunv@vnet.ibm.com


   Vijay Srinivasan
   IBM Corporation
   PO Box 12195
   Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
   Phone: +1 (919) 254-2730
   Email: vijay@raleigh.ibm.com


   Steven Blake
   IBM Corporation
   PO Box 12195
   Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
   Phone: +1 (919) 254-2030
   Email: slblake@raleigh.ibm.com















Viswanathan, et al.        Expires: January 1998               [Page 13]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.124, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/