draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-general-constraints-ospf-te-06.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-general-constraints-ospf-te-07.txt 
Network work group Fatai Zhang Network work group Fatai Zhang
Internet Draft Young Lee Internet Draft Young Lee
Intended status: Standards Track Jianrui Han Intended status: Standards Track Jianrui Han
Huawei Huawei
G. Bernstein G. Bernstein
Grotto Networking Grotto Networking
Yunbin Xu Yunbin Xu
CATR CATR
Expires: June 23, 2014 December 23, 2013 Expires: August 5, 2014 February 5, 2014
OSPF-TE Extensions for General Network Element Constraints OSPF-TE Extensions for General Network Element Constraints
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-general-constraints-ospf-te-06.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-general-constraints-ospf-te-07.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with
the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts. Drafts.
skipping to change at page 1, line 38 skipping to change at page 1, line 38
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 23, 2014. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 5, 2014.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
skipping to change at page 2, line 38 skipping to change at page 2, line 38
Conventions used in this document Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119].
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................3 1. Introduction...................................................3
2. Node Information...............................................4 2. Node Information...............................................3
2.1. Connectivity Matrix.......................................4 2.1. Connectivity Matrix.......................................4
3. Link Information...............................................5 3. Link Information...............................................4
3.1. Port Label Restrictions...................................5 3.1. Port Label Restrictions...................................5
4. Routing Procedures.............................................6 4. Routing Procedures.............................................5
5. Scalability and Timeliness.....................................6 5. Scalability and Timeliness.....................................6
5.1. Different Sub-TLVs into Multiple LSAs.....................7 5.1. Different Sub-TLVs into Multiple LSAs.....................6
5.2. Decomposing a Connectivity Matrix into Multiple Matrices..7 5.2. Decomposing a Connectivity Matrix into Multiple Matrices..7
6. Security Considerations........................................7 6. Security Considerations........................................7
7. IANA Considerations............................................8 7. IANA Considerations............................................7
7.1. Node Information..........................................8 7.1. Node Information..........................................8
7.2. Link Information..........................................8 7.2. Link Information..........................................8
8. References.....................................................8 8. References.....................................................8
8.1. Normative References......................................8 8.1. Normative References......................................8
8.2. Informative References....................................9 8.2. Informative References....................................9
9. Authors' Addresses .............................................9 9. Authors' Addresses .............................................9
Acknowledgment...................................................11 Acknowledgment...................................................11
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
skipping to change at page 3, line 32 skipping to change at page 3, line 32
[GEN-Encode] provides efficient encodings of information needed by [GEN-Encode] provides efficient encodings of information needed by
the routing and label assignment process in technologies such as the routing and label assignment process in technologies such as
WSON and are potentially applicable to a wider range of WSON and are potentially applicable to a wider range of
technologies. The encoding provided in [GEN-Encode] is protocol- technologies. The encoding provided in [GEN-Encode] is protocol-
neutral and can be used in routing, signaling and/or Path neutral and can be used in routing, signaling and/or Path
Computation Element communication protocol extensions. Computation Element communication protocol extensions.
This document defines extensions to the OSPF routing protocol based This document defines extensions to the OSPF routing protocol based
on [GEN-Encode] to enhance the Traffic Engineering (TE) properties on [GEN-Encode] to enhance the Traffic Engineering (TE) properties
of GMPLS TE which are defined in [RFC3630], [RFC4202], and [RFC4203]. of GMPLS TE which are defined in [RFC3630], [RFC4202], and [RFC4203].
The enhancements to the TEproperties of GMPLS TE links can be The enhancements to the TE properties of GMPLS TE links can be
advertised in OSPF TE LSAs. The TE LSA, which is an opaque LSA with advertised in OSPF TE LSAs. The TE LSA, which is an opaque LSA with
area flooding scope [RFC3630], has only one top-level area flooding scope [RFC3630], has only one top-level
Type/Length/Value (TLV) triplet and has one or more nested sub-TLVs Type/Length/Value (TLV) triplet and has one or more nested sub-TLVs
for extensibility. The top-level TLV can take one of three values (1) for extensibility. The top-level TLV can take one of three values (1)
Router Address [RFC3630], (2) Link [RFC3630], (3) Generic Node Router Address [RFC3630], (2) Link [RFC3630], (3) Node Attribute
Attribute defined in Section 2. In this document, we enhance the defined in Section 2. In this document, we enhance the sub-TLVs for
sub-TLVs for the Link TLV and define a new top-level TLV (Generic the Link TLV in support of the general network element constraints
Node Attribute TLV) in support of the general network element under the control of GMPLS.
constraints under the control of GMPLS.
The detailed encoding of OSPF extensions are not defined in this The detailed encoding of OSPF extensions are not defined in this
document. [GEN-Encode] provides encoding details. document. [GEN-Encode] provides encoding details.
2. Node Information 2. Node Information
According to [GEN-Encode], the additional node information According to [GEN-Encode], the additional node information
representing node switching asymmetry constraints includes Node ID representing node switching asymmetry constraints includes Node ID
and connectivity matrix. Except for the Node ID, which should comply and connectivity matrix. Except for the Node ID, which should comply
with Routing Address described in [RFC3630], the other pieces of with Routing Address described in [RFC3630], the other pieces of
information are defined in this document. information are defined in this document.
Per [GEN-Encode], we have identified the following new Sub-TLVs to Per [GEN-Encode], we have identified the following new Sub-TLVs to
the Node Attribute TLV as defined in [RFC5786]. Detailed description the Node Attribute TLV as defined in [RFC5786]. Detailed description
for each newly defined Sub-TLV is provided in subsequent sections: for each newly defined Sub-TLV is provided in subsequent sections:
Sub-TLV Type Length Name Sub-TLV Type Length Name
TBD variable Connectivity Matrix 14 (Suggested) variable Connectivity Matrix
In some specific technologies, e.g., WSON networks, the Connectivity In some specific technologies, e.g., WSON networks, the Connectivity
Matrix sub-TLV may be optional, which depends on the control plane Matrix sub-TLV may be optional, which depends on the control plane
implementations. Usually, for example, in WSON networks, implementations. Usually, for example, in WSON networks,
Connectivity Matrix sub-TLV may be advertised in the LSAs since WSON Connectivity Matrix sub-TLV may be advertised in the LSAs since WSON
switches are currently asymmetric. If no Connectivity Matrix sub-TLV switches are currently asymmetric. If no Connectivity Matrix sub-TLV
is included, it is assumed that the switches support symmetric is included, it is assumed that the switches support symmetric
switching. switching.
2.1. Connectivity Matrix 2.1. Connectivity Matrix
If the switching devices supporting certain data plane technology is If the switching devices supporting certain data plane technology is
asymmetric, it is necessary to identify which ingress ports and asymmetric, it is necessary to identify which input ports and labels
labels can be switched to some specific labels on a specific egress can be switched to some specific labels on a specific output port.
port.
The Connectivity Matrix is used to identify these restrictions, The Connectivity Matrix is used to identify these restrictions,
which can represent either the potential connectivity matrix for which can represent either the potential connectivity matrix for
asymmetric switches (e.g., ROADMs and such) or fixed connectivity asymmetric switches (e.g., ROADMs and such) or fixed connectivity
for an asymmetric device such as a multiplexer as defined in [WSON- for an asymmetric device such as a multiplexer as defined in [WSON-
Info]. Info].
The Connectivity Matrix is a sub-TLV of the Generic Node Attribute The Connectivity Matrix is a sub-TLV of the Node Attribute TLV. The
TLV. The length is the length of value field in octets. The meaning length is the length of value field in octets. The meaning and
and format of this sub-TLV value field are defined in Section 2.1 of format of this sub-TLV value field are defined in Section 2.1 of
[GEN-Encode]. One sub-TLV contains one matrix. The Connectivity [GEN-Encode]. One sub-TLV contains one matrix. The Connectivity
Matrix sub-TLV may occur more than once to contain multiple matrices Matrix sub-TLV may occur more than once to contain multiple matrices
within the Generic Node Attribute TLV. In addition a large within the Node Attribute TLV. In addition a large connectivity
connectivity matrix can be decomposed into smaller sub-matrices for matrix can be decomposed into smaller sub-matrices for transmission
transmission in multiple LSAs as described in Section 5. in multiple LSAs as described in Section 5.
3. Link Information 3. Link Information
The most common link sub-TLVs nested in the top-level link TLV are The most common link sub-TLVs nested in the top-level link TLV are
already defined in [RFC3630], [RFC4203]. For example, Link ID, already defined in [RFC3630], [RFC4203]. For example, Link ID,
Administrative Group, Interface Switching Capability Descriptor Administrative Group, Interface Switching Capability Descriptor
(ISCD), Link Protection Type, Shared Risk Link Group Information (ISCD), Link Protection Type, Shared Risk Link Group Information
(SRLG), and Traffic Engineering Metric are among the typical link (SRLG), and Traffic Engineering Metric are among the typical link
sub-TLVs. sub-TLVs.
Per [GEN-Encode], we add the following additional link sub-TLVs to Per [GEN-Encode], we add the following additional link sub-TLVs to
the link TLV in this document. the link TLV in this document.
Sub-TLV Type Length Name Sub-TLV Type Length Name
TBD variable Port Label Restrictions 26 (suggested) variable Port Label Restrictions
Generally all the sub-TLVs above are optional, which depends on the Generally all the sub-TLVs above are optional, which depends on the
control plane implementations. The Port Label Restrictions sub-TLV control plane implementations. The Port Label Restrictions sub-TLV
will not be advertised when there are no restrictions on label will not be advertised when there are no restrictions on label
assignment. assignment.
3.1. Port Label Restrictions 3.1. Port Label Restrictions
Port label restrictions describe the label restrictions that the Port label restrictions describe the label restrictions that the
network element (node) and link may impose on a port. These network element (node) and link may impose on a port. These
skipping to change at page 5, line 42 skipping to change at page 5, line 35
flexibility, port label restrictions may be specified relative to flexibility, port label restrictions may be specified relative to
the port in general or to a specific connectivity matrix. the port in general or to a specific connectivity matrix.
For example, the Port Label Restrictions describes the wavelength For example, the Port Label Restrictions describes the wavelength
restrictions that the link and various optical devices such as OXCs, restrictions that the link and various optical devices such as OXCs,
ROADMs, and waveband multiplexers may impose on a port in WSON. ROADMs, and waveband multiplexers may impose on a port in WSON.
These restrictions represent what wavelength may or may not be used These restrictions represent what wavelength may or may not be used
on a link and are relatively static. The detailed information about on a link and are relatively static. The detailed information about
port label restrictions is described in [WSON-Info]. port label restrictions is described in [WSON-Info].
The Port Label Restrictions sub-TLV is a sub-TLV of the Link TLV. The Port Label Restrictions sub-TLV is a sub-TLV of the Link TLV.
The length is the length of value field in octets. The meaning and The length is the length of value field in octets. The meaning and
format of this sub-TLV value field are defined in Section 2.2 of format of this sub-TLV value field are defined in Section 2.2 of
[GEN-Encode]. The Port Label Restrictions sub-TLV may occur more [GEN-Encode]. The Port Label Restrictions sub-TLV may occur more
than once to specify a complex port constraint within the link TLV. than once to specify a complex port constraint within the link TLV.
4. Routing Procedures 4. Routing Procedures
All the sub-TLVs are nested in top-level TLV(s) and contained in All the sub-TLVs are nested in top-level TLV(s) and contained in
Opaque LSAs. The flooding rules of Opaque LSAs are specified in Opaque LSAs. The flooding rules of Opaque LSAs are specified in
[RFC2328], [RFC5250], [RFC3630], [RFC4203]. [RFC2328], [RFC5250], [RFC3630], and [RFC4203].
Considering the routing scalability issues in some cases, the Considering the routing scalability issues in some cases, the
routing protocol should be capable of supporting the separation of routing protocol should be capable of supporting the separation of
dynamic information from relatively static information to avoid dynamic information from relatively static information to avoid
unnecessary updates of static information when dynamic information unnecessary updates of static information when dynamic information
is changed. A standards-compliant approach is to separate the is changed. A standards-compliant approach is to separate the
dynamic information sub-TLVs from the static information sub-TLVs, dynamic information sub-TLVs from the static information sub-TLVs,
each nested in a separate top-level TLV ([RFC3630 and RFC5876]), and each nested in a separate top-level TLV ([RFC3630 and RFC5876]), and
advertise them in the separate OSPF TE LSAs. advertise them in the separate OSPF TE LSAs.
For node information, since the Connectivity Matrix information is For node information, since the Connectivity Matrix information is
static, the LSA containing the Generic Node Attribute TLV can be static, the LSA containing the Node Attribute TLV can be updated
updated with a lower frequency to avoid unnecessary updates. with a lower frequency to avoid unnecessary updates.
For link information, a mechanism MAY be applied such that static For link information, a mechanism MAY be applied such that static
information and dynamic information of one TE link are contained in information and dynamic information of one TE link are contained in
separate Opaque LSAs. For example, the Port Label Restrictions separate Opaque LSAs. For example, the Port Label Restrictions
information sub-TLV could be nested in separate top level link TLVs information sub-TLV could be nested in separate top level link TLVs
and advertised in the separate LSAs. and advertised in the separate LSAs.
Note that as with other TE information, an implementation SHOULD As with other TE information, an implementation typically takes
take measures to avoid rapid and frequent updates of routing measures to avoid rapid and frequent updates of routing information
information that could cause the routing network to become swamped. that could cause the routing network to become swamped. See
A threshold mechanism MAY be applied such that updates are only [RFC3630] Section 3 for related details.
flooded when a number of changes have been made to the label
availability information (e.g., wavelength availability) within a
specific time interval. Such mechanisms MUST be configurable if they
are implemented.
5. Scalability and Timeliness 5. Scalability and Timeliness
This document has defined two sub-TLVs for describing generic This document has defined two sub-TLVs for describing generic
routing contraints. The examples given in [Gen-Encode] show that routing contraints. The examples given in [GEN-Encode] show that
very large systems, in terms of label count or ports can be very very large systems, in terms of label count or ports, can be very
efficiently encoded. However there has been concern expressed that efficiently encoded. However there has been concern expressed that
some possible systems may produce LSAs that exceed the IP Maximum some possible systems may produce LSAs that exceed the IP Maximum
Transmission Unit (MTU) and that methods be given to allow for the Transmission Unit (MTU) and that methods be given to allow for the
splitting of general constraint LSAs into smaller LSAs that are splitting of general constraint LSAs into smaller LSAs that are
under the MTU limit. This section presents a set of techniques that under the MTU limit. This section presents a set of techniques that
can be used for this purpose. can be used for this purpose.
5.1. Different Sub-TLVs into Multiple LSAs 5.1. Different Sub-TLVs into Multiple LSAs
Two sub-TLVs are defined in this document: Two sub-TLVs are defined in this document:
1. Connectivity Matrix (Node Attribute TLV) 1. Connectivity Matrix (Node Attribute TLV)
2. Port Label Restrictions (Link TLV) 2. Port Label Restrictions (Link TLV)
The Connectivity Matrix can be carried in the Node Attribute TLV as The Connectivity Matrix can be carried in the Node Attribute TLV as
defined in [RFC5786] while the Port Label Restrictions can defined in [RFC5786] while the Port Label Restrictions can be
becarried in an Link TLV of which there can be at most one in an LSA carried in an Link TLV of which there can be at most one in an LSA
as defined in [RFC3630]. Note that the Port Label Restrictions are as defined in [RFC3630]. Note that the Port Label Restrictions are
relatively static, i.e., only would change with hardware changes or relatively static, i.e., only would change with hardware changes or
significant system reconfiguration. significant system reconfiguration.
5.2. Decomposing a Connectivity Matrix into Multiple Matrices 5.2. Decomposing a Connectivity Matrix into Multiple Matrices
In the highly unlikely event that a Connectivity Matrix sub-TLV by In the highly unlikely event that a Connectivity Matrix sub-TLV by
itself would result in an LSA exceeding the MTU, a single large itself would result in an LSA exceeding the MTU, a single large
matrix can be decomposed into sub-matrices. Per [GEN-Encode] a matrix can be decomposed into sub-matrices. Per [GEN-Encode] a
connectivity matrix just consists of pairs of input and output ports connectivity matrix just consists of pairs of input and output ports
skipping to change at page 7, line 45 skipping to change at page 7, line 31
sub-TLVs received to understand the complete connectivity potential sub-TLVs received to understand the complete connectivity potential
of the system. Prior to receiving any Connectivity Matrix sub-TLVs of the system. Prior to receiving any Connectivity Matrix sub-TLVs
path computation may compute a path through the system when in fact path computation may compute a path through the system when in fact
no path exists. In between the reception of an additional no path exists. In between the reception of an additional
Connectivity Matrix sub-TLV path computation may not be able to find Connectivity Matrix sub-TLV path computation may not be able to find
a path through the system when one actually exists. Both cases are a path through the system when one actually exists. Both cases are
currently encountered and handled with existing GMPLS mechanisms. currently encountered and handled with existing GMPLS mechanisms.
Due to the reliability mechanisms in OSPF the phenomena of late or Due to the reliability mechanisms in OSPF the phenomena of late or
missing Connectivity Matrix sub-TLVs would be relatively rare. missing Connectivity Matrix sub-TLVs would be relatively rare.
In case where the new sub-TLVs or their attendant encodings are
malformed, the proper action would be to log the problem and ignore
just the sub-TLVs in GMPLS path computations rather than ignoring
the entire LSA.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce any further security issues other This document does not introduce any further security issues other
than those discussed in [RFC 3630], [RFC 4203]. than those discussed in [RFC3630], [RFC4203].
For general security aspects relevant to Generalized Multiprotocol For general security aspects relevant to Generalized Multiprotocol
Label Switching (GMPLS)-controlled networks, please refer to Label Switching (GMPLS)-controlled networks, please refer to
[RFC5920]. [RFC5920].
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to allocate new sub-TLVs as defined in Sections 2 IANA is requested to allocate new sub-TLVs as defined in Sections 2
and 3 as follows: and 3 as follows:
7.1. Node Information 7.1. Node Information
This document also introduces the following sub-TLVs of Node This document defines a new sub-TLV of the Node Attribute TLV (Value
Attribute TLV: 5). The assignment of the following new type in the "Types for sub-
TLVs of TE Node Attribute TLV" portion of the "Open Shortest Path
First (OSPF) Traffic Engineering TLVs" registry is needed:
Type sub-TLV This document introduces the following sub-TLVs of Node Attribute
TLV (Value 5):
TBD Connectivity Matrix Type sub-TLV
14 (suggested, to be assigned by IANA) Connectivity Matrix
7.2. Link Information 7.2. Link Information
This document introduces the following sub-TLV of TE Link TLV (Value This document defines a new sub-TLV of the TE Link TLV (Value 2).
2): The assignment of the following new type in the "Types for sub-TLVs
of TE Link TLV" portion of the "Open Shortest Path First (OSPF)
Traffic Engineering TLVs" registry is needed:
Type sub-TLV Type sub-TLV
TBD Port Label Restrictions 26 (suggested, to be assigned by IANA) Port Label Restrictions
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998. [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.
skipping to change at page 9, line 12 skipping to change at page 9, line 8
Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005 Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005
[RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions [RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions
in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005. (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005.
[RFC5250] L. Berger, I. Bryskin, A. Zinin, R. Coltun "The OSPF [RFC5250] L. Berger, I. Bryskin, A. Zinin, R. Coltun "The OSPF
Opaque LSA Option", RFC 5250, July 2008. Opaque LSA Option", RFC 5250, July 2008.
[RFC5786] R. Aggarwal and K. Kompella,'' Advertising a Router's Local [RFC5786] R. Aggarwal and K. Kompella,"Advertising a Router's Local
Addresses in OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions'', Addresses in OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions",
RFC 5786, March 2010. RFC 5786, March 2010.[GEN-Encode] G. Bernstein, Y. Lee, D.
Li, W. Imajuku, " General Network Element Constraint
[GEN-Encode] G. Bernstein, Y. Lee, D. Li, W. Imajuku, " General Encoding for GMPLS Controlled Networks", work in progress:
Network Element Constraint Encoding for GMPLS Controlled draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode.
Networks", work in progress: draft-ietf-ccamp-general-
constraint-encode.
8.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[RFC6163] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein, W. Imajuku, "Framework for GMPLS and [RFC6163] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein, W. Imajuku, "Framework for GMPLS and
PCE Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks PCE Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks
(WSON)", RFC 6163, February 2011. (WSON)", RFC 6163, February 2011.
[WSON-Info] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein, D. Li, W. Imajuku, "Routing and [WSON-Info] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein, D. Li, W. Imajuku, "Routing and
Wavelength Assignment Information Model for Wavelength Wavelength Assignment Information Model for Wavelength
Switched Optical Networks", work in progress: draft-ietf- Switched Optical Networks", work in progress: draft-ietf-
ccamp-rwa-info. ccamp-rwa-info.
[RFC5920] L. Fang, Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
9. Authors' Addresses 9. Authors' Addresses
Fatai Zhang Fatai Zhang
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base
Bantian, Longgang District Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China
Phone: +86-755-28972912 Phone: +86-755-28972912
Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com
Young Lee Young Lee
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
1700 Alma Drive, Suite 100 5360 Legacy Drive, Building 3
Plano, TX 75075 Plano, TX 75023
USA USA
Phone: (469)277-5838
Phone: (972) 509-5599 (x2240) Email: leeyoung@huawei.com
Email: ylee@huawei.com
Jianrui Han Jianrui Han
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base
Bantian, Longgang District Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China
Phone: +86-755-28977943 Phone: +86-755-28977943
Email: hanjianrui@huawei.com Email: hanjianrui@huawei.com
skipping to change at page 12, line 24 skipping to change at page 12, line 21
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
any standard or specification contained in an IETF Document. Please any standard or specification contained in an IETF Document. Please
address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
The definitive version of an IETF Document is that published by, or The definitive version of an IETF Document is that published by, or
under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of IETF Documents that are under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of IETF Documents that are
published by third parties, including those that are translated into published by third parties, including those that are translated into
other languages, should not be considered to be definitive versions other languages, should not be considered to be definitive versions
of IETF Documents. The definitive version of these Legal Provisions of IETF Documents. The definitive version of these Legal Provisions
is that published by, or under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions is that published by, or under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions
of these Legal Provisions that are published by third parties, of these Legal Provisions that are published by third parties,
including those that are translated into other languages, should including those that are translated into other languages, should not
not be considered to be definitive versions of these Legal be considered to be definitive versions of these Legal Provisions.
Provisions.
For the avoidance of doubt, each Contributor to the IETF Standards For the avoidance of doubt, each Contributor to the IETF Standards
Process licenses each Contribution that he or she makes as part of Process licenses each Contribution that he or she makes as part of
the IETF Standards Process to the IETF Trust pursuant to the the IETF Standards Process to the IETF Trust pursuant to the
provisions of RFC 5378. No language to the contrary, or terms, provisions of RFC 5378. No language to the contrary, or terms,
conditions or rights that differ from or are inconsistent with the conditions or rights that differ from or are inconsistent with the
rights and licenses granted under RFC 5378, shall have any effect rights and licenses granted under RFC 5378, shall have any effect
and shall be null and void, whether published or posted by such and shall be null and void, whether published or posted by such
Contributor, or included with or in such Contribution. Contributor, or included with or in such Contribution.
Disclaimer of Validity Disclaimer of Validity
All IETF Documents and the information contained therein are All IETF Documents and the information contained therein are
provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION
HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY,
SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL
DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY
LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION THEREIN WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION THEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE
WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Full Copyright Statement Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
 End of changes. 40 change blocks. 
79 lines changed or deleted 85 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/