draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-06.txt   rfc4783.txt 
Internet Draft Lou Berger - Editor (LabN)
Updates: 3473 Network Working Group L. Berger, Ed.
Request for Comments: 4783 LabN
Updates: 3473 December 2006
Category: Standards Track Category: Standards Track
September 2006
GMPLS - Communication of Alarm Information GMPLS - Communication of Alarm Information
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-06.txt Status of This Memo
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 This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at Copyright Notice
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2006).
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Abstract Abstract
This document describes an extension to Generalized MPLS (Multi- This document describes an extension to Generalized MPLS (Multi-
Protocol Label Switching) signaling to support communication of alarm Protocol Label Switching) signaling to support communication of alarm
information. GMPLS signaling already supports the control of alarm information. GMPLS signaling already supports the control of alarm
reporting, but not the communication of alarm information. This reporting, but not the communication of alarm information. This
document presents both a functional description and GMPLS-RSVP document presents both a functional description and GMPLS-RSVP
specifics of such an extension. This document also proposes specifics of such an extension. This document also proposes
modification of the RSVP ERROR_SPEC object. modification of the RSVP ERROR_SPEC object.
This document updates RFC 3473 "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label This document updates RFC 3473, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions" through the addition of new, Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", through the addition of new,
optional protocol elements. It does not change, and is fully backward optional protocol elements. It does not change, and is fully
compatible with the procedures specified in RFC 3473. backward compatible with, the procedures specified in RFC 3473.
Contents Table of Contents
1 Introduction .............................................. 3 1. Introduction ....................................................3
1.1 Background ................................................ 3 1.1. Background .................................................3
2 Alarm Information Communication ........................... 4 2. Alarm Information Communication .................................4
3 GMPLS-RSVP Details ........................................ 5 3. GMPLS-RSVP Details ..............................................5
3.1 ALARM_SPEC Objects ........................................ 5 3.1. ALARM_SPEC Objects .........................................5
3.1.1 IF_ID ALARM_SPEC (and ERROR_SPEC) TLVs .................... 6 3.1.1. IF_ID ALARM_SPEC (and ERROR_SPEC) TLVs ..............5
3.1.2 Procedures ................................................ 9 3.1.2. Procedures ..........................................9
3.1.3 Error Codes and Values .................................... 11 3.1.3. Error Codes and Values .............................10
3.1.4 Backwards Compatibility ................................... 11 3.1.4. Backwards Compatibility ............................11
3.2 Controlling Alarm Communication ........................... 11 3.2. Controlling Alarm Communication ...........................11
3.2.1 Updated Admin Status Object ............................... 12 3.2.1. Updated Admin_Status Object ........................11
3.2.2 Procedures ................................................ 12 3.2.2. Procedures .........................................11
3.3 Message Formats ........................................... 13 3.3. Message Formats ...........................................12
3.4 Relationship to GMPLS UNI ................................. 14 3.4. Relationship to GMPLS UNI .................................13
3.5 Relationship to GMPLS E-NNI .............................. 14 3.5. Relationship to GMPLS E-NNI ...............................14
4 Acknowledgments ........................................... 15 4. Security Considerations ........................................14
5 Security Considerations ................................... 15 5. IANA Considerations ............................................15
6 IANA Considerations ....................................... 16 5.1. New RSVP Object ...........................................15
6.1 New RSVP Object ........................................... 16 5.2. New Interface ID Types ....................................16
6.2 New Interface ID Types .................................... 16 5.3. New Registry for Admin-Status Object Bit Fields ...........16
6.3 New Registry for Admin-Status Object Bit Fields ........... 17 5.4. New RSVP Error Code .......................................16
6.4 New RSVP Error Code ....................................... 17 6. References .....................................................17
7 References ................................................ 18 6.1. Normative References ......................................17
7.1 Normative References ...................................... 18 6.2. Informative References ....................................17
7.2 Informative References .................................... 18 7. Acknowledgments ................................................18
8 Contributors .............................................. 19 8. Contributors ...................................................18
9 Contact Address ........................................... 19
10 Full Copyright Statement .................................. 20
11 Intellectual Property ..................................... 20
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
GMPLS Signaling provides mechanisms that can be used to control the GMPLS signaling provides mechanisms that can be used to control the
reporting of alarms associated with an LSP. This support is provided reporting of alarms associated with a label switched path (LSP).
via Administrative Status Information [RFC3471] and the Admin_Status This support is provided via Administrative Status Information
object [RFC3473]. These mechanisms only control if alarm reporting [RFC3471] and the Admin_Status object [RFC3473]. These mechanisms
is inhibited. No provision is made for communication of alarm only control if alarm reporting is inhibited. No provision is made
information within GMPLS. for communication of alarm information within GMPLS.
The extension described in this document defines how the alarm The extension described in this document defines how the alarm
information associated with a GMPLS label-switched path (LSP) may be information associated with a GMPLS LSP may be communicated along the
communicated along the path of the LSP. Communication both upstream path of the LSP. Communication both upstream and downstream is
and downstream is supported. The value in communicating such alarm supported. The value in communicating such alarm information is that
information is that this information is then available at every node this information is then available at every node along the LSP for
along the LSP for display and diagnostic purposes. Alarm information display and diagnostic purposes. Alarm information may also be
may also be useful in certain traffic protection scenarios, but such useful in certain traffic protection scenarios, but such uses are out
uses are out of scope of this document. Alarm communication is of the scope of this document. Alarm communication is supported via
supported via a new object, new error/alarm information TLVs, and a a new object, new error/alarm information TLVs, and a new
new Administrative Status Information bit. Administrative Status Information bit.
The communication of alarms, as described in this document, is The communication of alarms, as described in this document, is
controllable on a per LSP basis. Such communication may be useful controllable on a per-LSP basis. Such communication may be useful
within network configurations where not all nodes support within network configurations where not all nodes support
communication to a user for reporting of alarms and/or communication communication to a user for reporting of alarms and/or communication
is needed to support specific applications. The support of this is needed to support specific applications. The support of this
functionality is optional. functionality is optional.
The communication of alarms within GMPLS does not imply any The communication of alarms within GMPLS does not imply any
modification in behavior of processing of alarms, or for the modification in behavior of processing of alarms, or for the
communication of alarms outside of GMPLS. Additionally, the communication of alarms outside of GMPLS. Additionally, the
extension described in this document is not intended to replace any extension described in this document is not intended to replace any
(existing) data plane fault propagation techniques. (existing) data plane fault propagation techniques.
skipping to change at page 4, line 10 skipping to change at page 4, line 10
that pass the filtering process are normally raised as alarms. These that pass the filtering process are normally raised as alarms. These
alarms are available for display to operators. They also may be alarms are available for display to operators. They also may be
collected centrally through means that are out of the scope of this collected centrally through means that are out of the scope of this
document. document.
Not all data plane problems cause the LSP to be immediately torn Not all data plane problems cause the LSP to be immediately torn
down. Further, there may be a desire, particularly in optical down. Further, there may be a desire, particularly in optical
transport networks, to retain an LSP and communicate relevant alarm transport networks, to retain an LSP and communicate relevant alarm
information even when the data plane state has failed completely. information even when the data plane state has failed completely.
Although error information can be reported using PathErr, ResvErr and Although error information can be reported using PathErr, ResvErr,
Notify messages, these messages typically indicate a problem in and Notify messages, these messages typically indicate a problem in
signaling state and can only report one problem at at a time. This signaling state and can only report one problem at a time. This
makes it hard to correlate all of the problems that may be associated makes it hard to correlate all of the problems that may be associated
with a single LSP and to allow an operator examining the status of an with a single LSP and to allow an operator examining the status of an
LSP to view a full list of current problems. This situation is LSP to view a full list of current problems. This situation is
exacerbated by the absence of any way to communicate that a problem exacerbated by the absence of any way to communicate that a problem
has been resolved and a corresponding alarm cleared. has been resolved and a corresponding alarm cleared.
The extensions defined in this document allow an operator or a The extensions defined in this document allow an operator or a
software component to obtain a full list of current alarms associated software component to obtain a full list of current alarms associated
with all of the resources used to support an LSP. The extensions with all of the resources used to support an LSP. The extensions
also ensure that this list is kept up-to-date and synchronized with also ensure that this list is kept up-to-date and synchronized with
skipping to change at page 4, line 50 skipping to change at page 4, line 50
included in ERROR_SPEC objects, e.g., when the ERROR_SPEC object is included in ERROR_SPEC objects, e.g., when the ERROR_SPEC object is
carried within a Notify message. carried within a Notify message.
While the details of alarm information are like the details of While the details of alarm information are like the details of
existing error communication, the semantics of processing differ. existing error communication, the semantics of processing differ.
Alarm information will typically relate to changes in data plane Alarm information will typically relate to changes in data plane
state, without changes in control state. Alarm information will state, without changes in control state. Alarm information will
always be associated with in-place LSPs. Such information will also always be associated with in-place LSPs. Such information will also
typically be most useful to operators and applications other than typically be most useful to operators and applications other than
control plane protocol processing. Finally, while error information control plane protocol processing. Finally, while error information
is communicated within PathErr, ResvErr and Notify messages is communicated within PathErr, ResvErr, and Notify messages
[RFC3473], alarm information will be carried within Path and Resv [RFC3473], alarm information will be carried within Path and Resv
messages. messages.
Path messages are used to carry alarm information to downstream nodes Path messages are used to carry alarm information to downstream
and Resv messages are used to carry alarm information to upstream nodes, and Resv messages are used to carry alarm information to
nodes. The intent of sending alarm information both upstream and upstream nodes. The intent of sending alarm information both
downstream is to provide the same visibility to alarm information at upstream and downstream is to provide the same visibility to alarm
any point along an LSP. The communication of multiple alarms information at any point along an LSP. The communication of multiple
associated with an LSP is supported. In this case, multiple alarms associated with an LSP is supported. In this case, multiple
ALARM_SPEC objects will be carried in the Path or Resv messages. ALARM_SPEC objects will be carried in the Path or Resv messages.
The addition of alarm information to Path and Resv messages is The addition of alarm information to Path and Resv messages is
controlled via a new Administrative Status Information bit. controlled via a new Administrative Status Information bit.
Administrative Status Information is carried in the Admin_Status Administrative Status Information is carried in the Admin_Status
object. object.
3. GMPLS-RSVP Details 3. GMPLS-RSVP Details
This section provides the GMPLS-RSVP [RFC3473] specification for This section provides the GMPLS-RSVP [RFC3473] specification for
communication of alarm information. The communication of alarm communication of alarm information. The communication of alarm
information is OPTIONAL. This section applies to nodes that support information is OPTIONAL. This section applies to nodes that support
communication of alarm information. communication of alarm information.
3.1. ALARM_SPEC Objects 3.1. ALARM_SPEC Objects
The ALARM_SPEC objects use the same format as the ERROR_SPEC object, The ALARM_SPEC objects use the same format as the ERROR_SPEC object,
but with class number of TBA (to be assigned by IANA in the form but with class number of 198 (assigned by IANA in the form 11bbbbbb,
11bbbbbb, per Section 3.1.4). per Section 3.1.4).
o Class = TBA, C-Type = 1 o Class = 198, C-Type = 1
Reserved. (C-Type value defined for ERROR_SPEC, but is not defined Reserved. (C-Type value defined for ERROR_SPEC, but is not
for use with ALARM_SPEC.) defined for use with ALARM_SPEC.)
o Class = TBA, C-Type = 2 o Class = 198, C-Type = 2
Reserved. (C-Type value defined for ERROR_SPEC, but is not defined Reserved. (C-Type value defined for ERROR_SPEC, but is not
for use with ALARM_SPEC.) defined for use with ALARM_SPEC.)
o IPv4 IF_ID ALARM_SPEC object: Class = TBA, C-Type = 3 o IPv4 IF_ID ALARM_SPEC object: Class = 198, C-Type = 3
Definition same as IPv4 IF_ID ERROR_SPEC [RFC3473]. Definition same as IPv4 IF_ID ERROR_SPEC [RFC3473].
o IPv6 IF_ID ALARM_SPEC object: Class = TBA, C-Type = 4 o IPv6 IF_ID ALARM_SPEC object: Class = 198, C-Type = 4
Definition same as IPv6 IF_ID ERROR_SPEC [RFC3473]. Definition same as IPv6 IF_ID ERROR_SPEC [RFC3473].
3.1.1. IF_ID ALARM_SPEC (and ERROR_SPEC) TLVs 3.1.1. IF_ID ALARM_SPEC (and ERROR_SPEC) TLVs
The following new TLVs are defined for use with the IPv4 and IPv6 The following new TLVs are defined for use with the IPv4 and IPv6
IF_ID ALARM_SPEC objects. They may also be used with the IPv4 and IF_ID ALARM_SPEC objects. They may also be used with the IPv4 and
IPv6 IF_ID ERROR_SPEC objects. See [RFC3471] section 9.1.1 for the IPv6 IF_ID ERROR_SPEC objects. See [RFC3471] Section 9.1.1 for the
original definition of these values. Note the length provided below original definition of these values. Note the length provided below
is for the total TLV. All TLVs defined in this section are OPTIONAL. is for the total TLV. All TLVs defined in this section are OPTIONAL.
The defined TLVs MUST follow any interface identifying TLVs. No The defined TLVs MUST follow any interface identifying TLVs. No
rules apply to the relative ordering of the TLVs defined in this rules apply to the relative ordering of the TLVs defined in this
section. section.
[Note: Type values are TBA (to be assigned) by IANA]
Type Length Description Type Length Description
---------------------------------- ----------------------------------
512 8 REFERENCE_COUNT 512 8 REFERENCE_COUNT
513 8 SEVERITY 513 8 SEVERITY
514 8 GLOBAL_TIMESTAMP 514 8 GLOBAL_TIMESTAMP
515 8 LOCAL_TIMESTAMP 515 8 LOCAL_TIMESTAMP
516 variable ERROR_STRING 516 variable ERROR_STRING
The Reference Count TLV has the following format: The Reference Count TLV has the following format:
skipping to change at page 6, line 39 skipping to change at page 6, line 30
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 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 | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reference Count | | Reference Count |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Reference Count: 32 bits Reference Count: 32 bits
The number of times this alarm has been repeated as determined The number of times this alarm has been repeated as determined
by the reporting node. This field MUST NOT be set to zero and by the reporting node. This field MUST NOT be set to zero, and
TLVs received with this field set to zero MUST be ignored. TLVs received with this field set to zero MUST be ignored.
Only one Reference Count TLV may be included in an object. Only one Reference Count TLV may be included in an object.
The Severity TLV has the following format: The Severity TLV has the following format:
0 1 2 3 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 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 | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved |Impact | Severity | | Reserved |Impact | Severity |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Reserved: 20 bits Reserved: 20 bits
This field is reserved. It MUST be set to zero on generation, This field is reserved. It MUST be set to zero on generation,
MUST be ignored on receipt and MUST be forwarded unchanged and MUST be ignored on receipt, and MUST be forwarded unchanged and
unexamined by transit nodes. unexamined by transit nodes.
Impact: 4 bits Impact: 4 bits
Indicates the impact of the alarm indicated in the TLV. See Indicates the impact of the alarm indicated in the TLV. See
[M.20] for a general discussion on classification of failures. [M.20] for a general discussion on classification of failures.
The following values are defined in this document. The details The following values are defined in this document. The details
of the semantics may be found in [M.20]. of the semantics may be found in [M.20].
Value Definition Value Definition
skipping to change at page 9, line 16 skipping to change at page 9, line 4
0 1 2 3 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 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 | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
// Error String (NULL padded display string) // // Error String (NULL padded display string) //
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Error String: 32 bits minimum (variable) Error String: 32 bits minimum (variable)
A string of characters in US-ASCII, representing the type of A string of characters in US-ASCII, representing the type of
error/alarm. This string is padded to the next largest 4 byte error/alarm. This string is padded to the next largest 4-byte
boundary using null characters. Null padding is not required boundary using null characters. Null padding is not required
when the string is 32-bit aligned. The contents of error when the string is 32-bit aligned. The contents of error
string are implementation dependent. See the condition types string are implementation dependent. See the condition types
listed in Appendices of [GR833] for a list of example strings. listed in Appendices of [GR833] for a list of example strings.
Note length includes padding. Note length includes padding.
Multiple Error String TLVs may be included in an object. Multiple Error String TLVs may be included in an object.
3.1.2. Procedures 3.1.2. Procedures
skipping to change at page 9, line 46 skipping to change at page 9, line 33
store any alarm information from received ALARM_SPEC objects for store any alarm information from received ALARM_SPEC objects for
future use. All ALARM_SPEC objects received in Path messages SHOULD future use. All ALARM_SPEC objects received in Path messages SHOULD
be passed unmodified downstream in the corresponding Path messages. be passed unmodified downstream in the corresponding Path messages.
All ALARM_SPEC objects received in Resv messages SHOULD be passed All ALARM_SPEC objects received in Resv messages SHOULD be passed
unmodified upstream in the corresponding Resv messages. ALARM_SPEC unmodified upstream in the corresponding Resv messages. ALARM_SPEC
objects are merged in transmitted Resv messages by including a copy objects are merged in transmitted Resv messages by including a copy
of all ALARM_SPEC objects received in corresponding Resv Messages. of all ALARM_SPEC objects received in corresponding Resv Messages.
To advertise local alarm information, a node generates an ALARM_SPEC To advertise local alarm information, a node generates an ALARM_SPEC
object for each alarm and adds it to both the Path and Resv messages object for each alarm and adds it to both the Path and Resv messages
for the effected LSP. In all cases, appropriate Error Node Address, for the impacted LSP.
Error Code and Error Values MUST be set, see below for a discussion
on Error Code and Error Values. As the InPlace and NotGuilty flags In all cases, appropriate Error Node Address, Error Code, and Error
only have meaning in ERROR_SPEC objects, they SHOULD NOT be set. Values MUST be set (see below for a discussion on Error Code and
TLVs SHOULD be included in the ALARM_SPEC object to identify the Error Values). As the InPlace and NotGuilty flags only have meaning
interface, if any, associated with the alarm - the TLVs defined in in ERROR_SPEC objects, they SHOULD NOT be set. TLVs SHOULD be
[RFC3471] for identifying interfaces in the IF_ID ERROR_SPEC object included in the ALARM_SPEC object to identify the interface, if any,
[RFC3473] SHOULD be used for this purpose, but note that TLVs type 4 associated with the alarm. The TLVs defined in [RFC3471] for
and 5 (component interfaces) are deprecated by [RFC4201] and SHOULD identifying interfaces in the IF_ID ERROR_SPEC object [RFC3473]
NOT be used. TLVs SHOULD also be included to indicate the severity SHOULD be used for this purpose, but note that TLVs type 4 and 5
(component interfaces) are deprecated by [RFC4201] and SHOULD NOT be
used. TLVs SHOULD also be included to indicate the severity
(Severity TLV), the time (Global Timestamp and/or Local Timestamp (Severity TLV), the time (Global Timestamp and/or Local Timestamp
TLVs), and a (brief) string (Error String TLV) associated with the TLVs), and a (brief) string (Error String TLV) associated with the
alarm. The reference count TLV MAY also be included to indicate the alarm. The reference count TLV MAY also be included to indicate the
number of times an alarm has been repeated at the reporting node. number of times an alarm has been repeated at the reporting node.
ALARM_SPEC objects received from other nodes are not effected by the ALARM_SPEC objects received from other nodes are not impacted by the
addition of local ALARM_SPEC objects, i.e., they continue to be addition of local ALARM_SPEC objects, i.e., they continue to be
processed as described above. The choice of which alarm or alarms to processed as described above. The choice of which alarm or alarms to
advertise and which to omit is a local policy matter, and may advertise and which to omit is a local policy matter, and may be
configurable by the user. configurable by the user.
There are two ways to indicate time. A global timestamp TLV is used There are two ways to indicate time. A global timestamp TLV is used
to provide an absolute time reference for the occurrence of an alarm. to provide an absolute time reference for the occurrence of an alarm.
The local timestamp TLV is used to provide time reference for the The local timestamp TLV is used to provide time reference for the
occurrence of an alarm that is relative to other information occurrence of an alarm that is relative to other information
advertised by the node. The global timestamp SHOULD be used on nodes advertised by the node. The global timestamp SHOULD be used on nodes
that maintain an absolute time reference. Both timestamp TLVs MAY be that maintain an absolute time reference. Both timestamp TLVs MAY be
used simultaneously. used simultaneously.
Note, ALARM_SPEC objects SHOULD NOT be added to the Path and Resv Note, ALARM_SPEC objects SHOULD NOT be added to the Path and Resv
states of LSPs that are in "alarm communication inhibited state." states of LSPs that are in "alarm communication inhibited" state.
ALARM_SPEC objects MAY be added to the state of LSPs that are in an ALARM_SPEC objects MAY be added to the state of LSPs that are in an
"administratively down" state. These states are indicated by the I "administratively down" state. These states are indicated by the I
and A bits of the Admin_Status object, see Section 3.2. and A bits of the Admin_Status object; see Section 3.2.
To remove local alarm information, a node simply removes the matching To remove local alarm information, a node simply removes the matching
locally generated ALARM_SPEC objects from the outgoing Path and Resv locally generated ALARM_SPEC objects from the outgoing Path and Resv
messages. A node MAY modify a locally generated ALARM_SPEC object. messages. A node MAY modify a locally generated ALARM_SPEC object.
Normal refresh and trigger message processing applies to Path or Resv Normal refresh and trigger message processing applies to Path or Resv
messages that contain ALARM_SPEC objects. Note that changes in messages that contain ALARM_SPEC objects. Note that changes in
ALARM_SPEC objects from one message to the next may include a ALARM_SPEC objects from one message to the next may include a
modification in the contents of a specific ALARM_SPEC object, or a modification in the contents of a specific ALARM_SPEC object, or a
change in the number of ALARM_SPEC objects present. All changes in change in the number of ALARM_SPEC objects present. All changes in
skipping to change at page 11, line 13 skipping to change at page 10, line 44
information not being properly or fully communicated. information not being properly or fully communicated.
3.1.3. Error Codes and Values 3.1.3. Error Codes and Values
The Error Codes and Values used in ALARM_SPEC objects are the same as The Error Codes and Values used in ALARM_SPEC objects are the same as
those used in ERROR_SPEC objects. New Error Code values for use with those used in ERROR_SPEC objects. New Error Code values for use with
both ERROR_SPEC and ALARM_SPEC objects may be assigned to support both ERROR_SPEC and ALARM_SPEC objects may be assigned to support
alarm types defined by other standards. alarm types defined by other standards.
In this document we define one new Error Code. The Error Code uses In this document we define one new Error Code. The Error Code uses
the value TBA (by IANA) and is referred to as "Alarms". The values the value 31 and is referred to as "Alarms". The values used in the
used in the Error Values field when the Error Code is "Alarms" are Error Values field when the Error Code is "Alarms" are the same as
the same as the values defined in the IANAItuProbableCause Textual the values defined in the IANAItuProbableCause Textual Convention of
Convention of IANA-ITU-ALARM-TC-MIB in the Alarm MIB [RFC3877]. Note IANA-ITU-ALARM-TC-MIB in the Alarm MIB [RFC3877]. Note that these
these values are managed by IANA, see http://www.iana.org. values are managed by IANA; see http://www.iana.org.
3.1.4. Backwards Compatibility 3.1.4. Backwards Compatibility
The support of ALARM_SPEC objects is OPTIONAL. Non-supporting nodes The support of ALARM_SPEC objects is OPTIONAL. Non-supporting nodes
will (according to the rules defined in [RFC2205]) pass the objects will (according to the rules defined in [RFC2205]) pass the objects
through the node unmodified, because the ALARM_SPEC object has a C- through the node unmodified, because the ALARM_SPEC object has a
Num of the form 11bbbbbb. C-Num of the form 11bbbbbb.
This allows alarm information to be collected and examined in a This allows alarm information to be collected and examined in a
network built from a collection of nodes some of which support the network built from a collection of nodes some of which support the
communication of alarm information, and some of which do not. communication of alarm information, and some of which do not.
3.2. Controlling Alarm Communication 3.2. Controlling Alarm Communication
Alarm information communication is controlled via Administrative Alarm information communication is controlled via Administrative
Status Information as carried in the Admin_Status object. A new bit Status Information as carried in the Admin_Status object. A new bit
is defined, called the I bit, that indicates when alarm communication is defined, called the I bit, that indicates when alarm communication
is to be inhibited. The definition of this bit does not modify the is to be inhibited. The definition of this bit does not modify the
procedures defined in Section 7 of [RFC3473]. procedures defined in Section 7 of [RFC3473].
3.2.1. Updated Admin Status Object 3.2.1. Updated Admin_Status Object
The format of the Admin_Status object is updated to include the I The format of the Admin_Status object is updated to include the I
bit: bit:
0 1 2 3 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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | Class-Num(196)| C-Type (1) | | Length | Class-Num(196)| C-Type (1) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|R| Reserved |I| |T|A|D| |R| Reserved |I| |T|A|D|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Inhibit Alarm Communication (I): 1 bit Inhibit Alarm Communication (I): 1 bit
When set, indicates that alarm communication is disabled for When set, indicates that alarm communication is disabled for
the LSP and that nodes SHOULD NOT add local alarm information. the LSP and that nodes SHOULD NOT add local alarm information.
See section 7.1 of [RFC3473] for the definition of the remaining See Section 7.1 of [RFC3473] for the definition of the remaining
bits. bits.
3.2.2. Procedures 3.2.2. Procedures
The I bit may be set and cleared using the procedures defined in The I bit may be set and cleared using the procedures defined in
Sections 7.2 and 7.3 of [RFC3473]. A node that receives (or Sections 7.2 and 7.3 of [RFC3473]. A node that receives (or
generates) an Admin_Status object with the A or I bits set (1), generates) an Admin_Status object with the A or I bits set (1),
SHOULD remove all locally generated alarm information from the SHOULD remove all locally generated alarm information from the
matching LSP's outgoing Path and Resv messages. When a node receives matching LSP's outgoing Path and Resv messages. When a node receives
(or generates) an Admin_Status object with the A and I bits clear (0) (or generates) an Admin_Status object with the A and I bits clear (0)
and there is local alarm information present, it SHOULD add the local and there is local alarm information present, it SHOULD add the local
alarm information to the matching LSP's outgoing Path and Resv alarm information to the matching LSP's outgoing Path and Resv
messages. messages.
The processing of non-locally generated ALARM_SPEC objects MUST NOT The processing of non-locally generated ALARM_SPEC objects MUST NOT
be impacted by the contents of the Admin_Status object, that is, be impacted by the contents of the Admin_Status object; that is,
received ALARM_SPEC objects MUST be forwarded unchanged regardless of received ALARM_SPEC objects MUST be forwarded unchanged regardless of
the received or transmitted settings of the I and A-bits. Note, per the received or transmitted settings of the I and A bits. Note that,
[RFC3473], the absence of the Admin_Status object is equivalent to per [RFC3473], the absence of the Admin_Status object is equivalent
receiving an object containing values all set to zero (0). to receiving an object containing values all set to zero (0).
I bit related processing behavior MAY be overridden locally based on I bit related processing behavior MAY be overridden locally based on
configuration. configuration.
When generating Notify messages for LSPs with the I bit set, the TLVs When generating Notify messages for LSPs with the I bit set, the TLVs
described in this document MAY be added to the ERROR_SPEC object sent described in this document MAY be added to the ERROR_SPEC object sent
in the the Notify message. in the Notify message.
3.3. Message Formats 3.3. Message Formats
This section presents the RSVP message related formats as modified by This section presents the RSVP message-related formats as modified by
this document. The formats specified in [RFC3473] served as the this document. The formats specified in [RFC3473] served as the
basis of these formats. The objects are listed in suggested basis of these formats. The objects are listed in suggested
ordering. ordering.
The format of a Path message is as follows: The format of a Path message is as follows:
<Path Message> ::= <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ] <Path Message> ::= <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ]
[ [<MESSAGE_ID_ACK> | <MESSAGE_ID_NACK>] ... ] [ [<MESSAGE_ID_ACK> | <MESSAGE_ID_NACK>] ... ]
[ <MESSAGE_ID> ] [ <MESSAGE_ID> ]
<SESSION> <RSVP_HOP> <SESSION> <RSVP_HOP>
skipping to change at page 14, line 8 skipping to change at page 13, line 24
[ <ADMIN_STATUS> ] [ <ADMIN_STATUS> ]
[ <POLICY_DATA> ... ] [ <POLICY_DATA> ... ]
[ <ALARM_SPEC> ... ] [ <ALARM_SPEC> ... ]
<STYLE> <flow descriptor list> <STYLE> <flow descriptor list>
<flow descriptor list> is not modified by this document. <flow descriptor list> is not modified by this document.
3.4. Relationship to GMPLS UNI 3.4. Relationship to GMPLS UNI
[RFC4208] defines how GMPLS may be used in an overlay model to [RFC4208] defines how GMPLS may be used in an overlay model to
provide a user-to-network interface. In this model, restrictions may provide a user-to-network interface (UNI). In this model,
be applied to the information that is signaled between an edge-node restrictions may be applied to the information that is signaled
and a core-node. This restriction allows the core network to limit between an edge-node and a core-node. This restriction allows the
the information that is visible outside of the core. This restriction core network to limit the information that is visible outside of the
may be made for confidentiality, privacy or security reasons. It may core. This restriction may be made for confidentiality, privacy, or
also be made for operational reasons, for example if the information security reasons. It may also be made for operational reasons, for
is only applicable within the core network. example, if the information is only applicable within the core
network.
The extensions described in this document are candidates for The extensions described in this document are candidates for
filtering as described in [RFC4208]. In particular the following filtering as described in [RFC4208]. In particular, the following
observations apply. observations apply.
o An ingress or egress core-node MAY filter alarms from the GMPLS o An ingress or egress core-node MAY filter alarms from the GMPLS
core to a client-node UNI LSP. This may be to protect information core to a client-node UNI LSP. This may be to protect information
about the core network, or to indicate that the core network is about the core network, or to indicate that the core network is
performing or has completed recovery actions for the GMPLS LSP. performing or has completed recovery actions for the GMPLS LSP.
o An ingress or egress core-node MAY modify alarms from the GMPLS o An ingress or egress core-node MAY modify alarms from the GMPLS
core when sending to a client-node UNI LSP. This may facilitate core when sending to a client-node UNI LSP. This may facilitate
the UNI client's ability to understand the failure and its effect the UNI client's ability to understand the failure and its effect
on the data plane, and enable the UNI client to take corrective on the data plane, and enable the UNI client to take corrective
actions in a more-appropriate manner. actions in a more appropriate manner.
o Similarly, an egress core-node MAY choose to not request alarm o Similarly, an egress core-node MAY choose not to request alarm
reporting on Path messages that it sends downstream to the overlay reporting on Path messages that it sends downstream to the overlay
network. network.
3.5. Relationship to GMPLS E-NNI 3.5. Relationship to GMPLS E-NNI
GMPLS may be used at the external network-to-network (E-NNI) GMPLS may be used at the external network-to-network interface
interface, see [ASON-APPL]. At this interface, restrictions may be (E-NNI); see [ASON-APPL]. At this interface, restrictions may be
applied to the information that is signaled between an egress and an applied to the information that is signaled between an egress and an
ingress core-node. ingress core-node.
This restriction allows the ingress core network to limit the This restriction allows the ingress core network to limit the
information that is visible outside of its core network. This information that is visible outside of its core network. This
restriction may be made for confidentiality, privacy or security restriction may be made for confidentiality, privacy, or security
reasons. It may also be made for operational reasons, for example if reasons. It may also be made for operational reasons, for example,
the information is only applicable within the core network. if the information is only applicable within the core network.
The extensions described in this document are candidates for The extensions described in this document are candidates for
filtering as described in [ASON-APPL]. In particular the following filtering as described in [ASON-APPL]. In particular, the following
observations apply. observations apply.
o An ingress or egress core-node MAY filter internal core network o An ingress or egress core-node MAY filter internal core network
alarms. This may be to protect information about the internal alarms. This may be to protect information about the internal
network, or to indicate that the core network is performing or has network or to indicate that the core network is performing or has
completed recovery actions for this LSP. completed recovery actions for this LSP.
o An ingress or egress core-node MAY modify internal core network o An ingress or egress core-node MAY modify internal core network
alarms. This may facilitate the peering E-NNI (i.e. the egress alarms. This may facilitate the peering E-NNI (i.e., the egress
core-node) to understand the failure and its effect on the data core-node) to understand the failure and its effect on the data
plane, and take corrective actions in a more-appropriate manner or plane, and take corrective actions in a more appropriate manner or
prolong the generated alarms upstream/downstream as appropriated. prolong the generated alarms upstream/downstream as appropriated.
o Similarly, an egress/ingress core-node MAY choose to not request o Similarly, an egress/ingress core-node MAY choose not to request
alarm reporting on Path messages that it sends downstream. alarm reporting on Path messages that it sends downstream.
4. Acknowledgments 4. Security Considerations
Valuable comments and input were received from a number of people,
including Wes Doonan, Bert Wijnen for the DISMAN reference, Tom Petch
for getting the disman WG interactions started. We also thank David
Black, Lars Eggert, Russ Housley, Dan Romascanu, and Magnus
Westerlund, for their valuable comments.
5. Security Considerations
Some operators may consider alarm information as sensitive. To Some operators may consider alarm information as sensitive. To
support environments where this is the case, implementations SHOULD support environments where this is the case, implementations SHOULD
allow the user to disable the generation of ALARM_SPEC objects, or to allow the user to disable the generation of ALARM_SPEC objects, or to
filter or correlate them at domain boundaries. filter or correlate them at domain boundaries.
This document introduces no additional security considerations. See This document introduces no additional security considerations. See
[RFC3473] for relevant security considerations. [RFC3473] for relevant security considerations.
It may be noted that if the security considerations of [RFC3473] are It may be noted that if the security considerations of [RFC3473] are
breached, alarm information may be spoofed. Such spoofing would be at breached, alarm information may be spoofed. Such spoofing would be
most annoying and cause slight degradation of control plane at most annoying and cause slight degradation of control plane
performance since the details are provided for information only and performance since the details are provided for information only and
do not result in protocol actions beyond the exchange of messages to do not result in protocol actions beyond the exchange of messages to
convey the information. If the protocol security is able to be convey the information. If the protocol security is able to be
breached sufficiently to allow spoofing of alarm information then breached sufficiently to allow spoofing of alarm information then
considerably more interesting and exciting damage can be caused by considerably more interesting and exciting damage can be caused by
spoofing other elements of the protocol messages. spoofing other elements of the protocol messages.
6. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to administer assignment of new values for IANA administered assignment of new values for namespaces defined in
namespaces defined in this document and reviewed in this section. this document and reviewed in this section.
6.1. New RSVP Object 5.1. New RSVP Object
Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following IANA made the following assignments in the "Class Names, Class
assignments in the "Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types" Numbers, and Class Types" section of the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry
section of the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters.
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters
A new class named ALARM_SPEC will be created in the 11bbbbbb range A new class named ALARM_SPEC (198) was created in the 11bbbbbb range
(197 suggested) with following values with following values
o Class = TBA, C-Type = 1 o Class = 198, C-Type = 1
[RFC-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec] RFC 4783
Reserved. (C-Type value defined for ERROR_SPEC, but is not Reserved. (C-Type value defined for ERROR_SPEC, but is not
defined for use with ALARM_SPEC.) defined for use with ALARM_SPEC.)
o Class = TBA, C-Type = 2 o Class = 198, C-Type = 2
[RFC-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec] RFC 4783
Reserved. (C-Type value defined for ERROR_SPEC, but is not Reserved. (C-Type value defined for ERROR_SPEC, but is not
defined for use with ALARM_SPEC.) defined for use with ALARM_SPEC.)
o IPv4 IF_ID ALARM_SPEC object: Class = TBA, C-Type = 3 o IPv4 IF_ID ALARM_SPEC object: Class = 198, C-Type = 3
[RFC-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec] RFC 4783
Definition same as IPv4 IF_ID ERROR_SPEC [RFC3473]. Definition same as IPv4 IF_ID ERROR_SPEC [RFC3473].
o IPv6 IF_ID ALARM_SPEC object: Class = TBA, C-Type = 4 o IPv6 IF_ID ALARM_SPEC object: Class = 198, C-Type = 4
[RFC-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec] RFC 4783
Definition same as IPv6 IF_ID ERROR_SPEC [RFC3473]. Definition same as IPv6 IF_ID ERROR_SPEC [RFC3473].
The ALARM_SPEC object uses the Error Code and Error Values from the The ALARM_SPEC object uses the Error Code and Error Values from the
ERROR_SPEC object. ERROR_SPEC object.
6.2. New Interface ID Types 5.2. New Interface ID Types
Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following IANA made the following assignments in the "Interface_ID Types"
assignments in the "Interface_ID Types" section of the "GMPLS section of the "GMPLS Signaling Parameters" registry located at
Signaling Parameters" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters.
http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters
xx2 8 REFERENCE_COUNT [RFC-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec] 512 8 REFERENCE_COUNT RFC 4783
xx3 8 SEVERITY [RFC-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec] 513 8 SEVERITY RFC 4783
xx4 8 GLOBAL_TIMESTAMP [RFC-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec] 514 8 GLOBAL_TIMESTAMP RFC 4783
xx5 8 LOCAL_TIMESTAMP [RFC-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec] 515 8 LOCAL_TIMESTAMP RFC 4783
xx6 variable ERROR_STRING [RFC-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec] 516 variable ERROR_STRING RFC 4783
(The value of 51 is suggested for xx.)
6.3. New Registry for Admin-Status Object Bit Fields 5.3. New Registry for Admin-Status Object Bit Fields
Upon approval of this document, the IANA will create a new section IANA created a new section titled "Administrative Status Information
titled "Administrative Status Information Flags" in the "GMPLS Flags" in the "GMPLS Signaling Parameters" registry located at
Signaling Parameters" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters and made the
http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters and make the
following assignments: following assignments:
Value Name Reference Value Name Reference
----------- -------------------------------- ----------------- ----------- -------------------------------- -----------------
0x80000000 Reflect (R) [RFC3473/RFC3471] 0x80000000 Reflect (R) [RFC3473/RFC3471]
0x00000010 Inhibit Alarm Communication (I) 0x00000010 Inhibit Alarm Communication (I) RFC 4783
[RFC-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec]
0x00000004 Testing (T) [RFC3473/RFC3471] 0x00000004 Testing (T) [RFC3473/RFC3471]
0x00000002 Administratively down (A) [RFC3473/RFC3471] 0x00000002 Administratively down (A) [RFC3473/RFC3471]
0x00000001 Deletion in progress (D) [RFC3473/RFC3471] 0x00000001 Deletion in progress (D) [RFC3473/RFC3471]
6.4. New RSVP Error Code 5.4. New RSVP Error Code
Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following IANA made the following assignments in the "Error Codes and Values"
assignments in the "Error Codes and Values" section of the "RSVP section of the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at
PARAMETERS" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp- http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters.
parameters
xx Alarms [RFC-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec] 31 Alarms RFC 4783
The Error Value sub-codes for this Error Code have values and The Error Value sub-codes for this Error Code have values and
meanings identical to the values and meanings defined in the meanings identical to the values and meanings defined in the
IANAItuProbableCause Textual Convention of IANA-ITU-ALARM-TC-MIB IANAItuProbableCause Textual Convention of IANA-ITU-ALARM-TC-MIB
in the Alarm MIB [RFC3877]. Note these values are already in the Alarm MIB [RFC3877]. Note that these values are already
managed the IANA. managed the IANA.
(The value of 31 is suggested for xx.) 6. References
7. References 6.1. Normative References
7.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2205] Braden, R. Ed. et al, "Resource ReserVation Protocol [RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and
-- Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205, S. Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) --
September 1997. Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September
1997.
[RFC3471] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol [RFC3471] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC
Description", RFC 3471, January 2003. 3471, January 2003.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label [RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling - Resource ReserVation Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC
RFC 3473, January 2003. 3473, January 2003.
[RFC3877] Chisholm, S., Romascanu, D., "Alarm Management [RFC3877] Chisholm, S. and D. Romascanu, "Alarm Management
Information Base (MIB)", RFC 3877, September 2004. Information Base (MIB)", RFC 3877, September 2004.
[M.3100] ITU Recommendation M.3100, "Generic Network Information [M.3100] ITU Recommendation M.3100, "Generic Network Information
Model", 1995 Model", 1995.
7.2. Informative References 6.2. Informative References
[RFC4201] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., Berger, L., "Link Bundling [RFC4201] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., and L. Berger, "Link Bundling
in MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4201, October 2005. in MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4201, October
2005.
[M.20] ITU-T, "MAINTENANCE PHILOSOPHY FOR TELECOMMUNICATION [M.20] ITU-T, "MAINTENANCE PHILOSOPHY FOR TELECOMMUNICATION
NETWORKS", Recommendation M.20, October 1992. NETWORKS", Recommendation M.20, October 1992.
[GR833] Bellcore, "Network Maintenance: Network Element and [GR833] Bellcore, "Network Maintenance: Network Element and
Transport Surveillance Messages" (GR-833-CORE), Issue 3, Transport Surveillance Messages" (GR-833-CORE), Issue 3,
February 1999. February 1999.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC4208] Swallow, G., Drake, J., Ishimatsu, H., and Y. Rekhter,
Requirement Levels," RFC 2119. "Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) User-
Network Interface (UNI): Resource ReserVation Protocol-
[RFC4208] Swallow, G., Drake, J., Ishimatsu, H., and Rekhter, Y. Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Support for the Overlay
"Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Model", RFC 4208, October 2005.
User-Network Interface (UNI): Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Support for the
Overlay Model", RFC 4208, October 2005.
[ASON-APPL] D. Papadimitriou et. al., "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) [ASON-APPL] Papadimitriou, D., et al., "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
RSVP-TE signaling usage in support of Automatically RSVP-TE signaling usage in support of Automatically
Switched Optical Network (ASON)," Switched Optical Network (ASON)", Work in Progress, July
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-ason, work in progress. 2005.
7. Acknowledgments
Valuable comments and input were received from a number of people,
including Wes Doonan, Bert Wijnen for the DISMAN reference, and Tom
Petch for getting the DISMAN WG interactions started. We also thank
David Black, Lars Eggert, Russ Housley, Dan Romascanu, and Magnus
Westerlund for their valuable comments.
8. Contributors 8. Contributors
Contributors are listed in alphabetical order: Contributors are listed in alphabetical order:
Lou Berger Deborah Brungard Deborah Brungard
LabN Consulting, L.L.C. AT&T Labs, Room MT D1-3C22 AT&T Labs, Room MT D1-3C22
200 Laurel Avenue 200 Laurel Avenue
Middletown, NJ 07748, USA Middletown, NJ 07748, USA
Phone: +1 301-468-9228 Phone: (732) 420-1573 Phone: (732) 420-1573
Email: lberger@labn.net Email: dbrungard@att.com EMail: dbrungard@att.com
Igor Bryskin Adrian Farrel Igor Bryskin Adrian Farrel
Movaz Networks, Inc. Old Dog Consulting Movaz Networks, Inc. Old Dog Consulting
7926 Jones Branch Drive 7926 Jones Branch Drive
Suite 615 Suite 615
McLean VA, 22102, USA Phone: +44 (0) 1978 860944 McLean VA, 22102, USA Phone: +44 (0) 1978 860944
Email: ibryskin@movaz.com Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk EMail: ibryskin@movaz.com EMail: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel) Arun Satyanarayana Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel) Arun Satyanarayana
Francis Wellesplein 1 Cisco Systems, Inc Francis Wellesplein 1 Cisco Systems, Inc
B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium 170 West Tasman Dr. B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium 170 West Tasman Dr.
San Jose, CA 95134 USA San Jose, CA 95134 USA
Phone: +32 3 240-8491 Phone: +1 408 853-3206 Phone: +32 3 240-8491 Phone: +1 408 853-3206
Email: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be Email: asatyana@cisco.com EMail: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be EMail: asatyana@cisco.com
9. Contact Address Editor's Address
Lou Berger Lou Berger
LabN Consulting, L.L.C. LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Phone: +1 301-468-9228 Phone: +1 301-468-9228
Email: lberger@labn.net EMail: lberger@labn.net
10. Full Copyright Statement Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2006).
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. 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 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST,
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE.
11. Intellectual Property Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 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 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 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 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr. http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ipr@ietf.org. ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Generated on: Thu Sep 7 22:15:17 TST 2006 Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
 End of changes. 99 change blocks. 
253 lines changed or deleted 237 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.33. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/