draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-07.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-08.txt 
Network Working Group K. Kompella, Editor Network Working Group K. Kompella, Editor
Internet Draft Y. Rekhter, Editor Internet Draft Y. Rekhter, Editor
Category: Standards Track Juniper Networks Category: Standards Track Juniper Networks
Expires: April 2004 October 2003 Expires: April 2004 October 2003
Routing Extensions in Support of Generalized Routing Extensions in Support of Generalized
Multi-Protocol Label Switching Multi-Protocol Label Switching
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-07.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-08.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
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 2, line 36 skipping to change at page 2, line 36
the extensions to the link state routing protocols in support of the extensions to the link state routing protocols in support of
GMPLS, and because GMPLS is within the scope of CCAMP WG. GMPLS, and because GMPLS is within the scope of CCAMP WG.
0.4. Justification 0.4. Justification
The WG should consider this document as it specifies the extensions The WG should consider this document as it specifies the extensions
to the link state routing protocols in support of GMPLS. to the link state routing protocols in support of GMPLS.
Changes since the last version Changes since the last version
Added text that this document only covers single layer networks. Updated references, security considerations. Fixed formatting
Updated references. errors.
Specification of Requirements Specification of Requirements
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].
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document specifies routing extensions in support of carrying This document specifies routing extensions in support of carrying
skipping to change at page 13, line 41 skipping to change at page 14, line 41
Switching Capabilities Descriptors. Switching Capabilities Descriptors.
3.4.7. Interface Switching Capabilities and Labels 3.4.7. Interface Switching Capabilities and Labels
Depicting a TE link as a tuple that contains Interface Switching Depicting a TE link as a tuple that contains Interface Switching
Capabilities at both ends of the link, some examples links may be: Capabilities at both ends of the link, some examples links may be:
[PSC, PSC] - a link between two packet LSRs [PSC, PSC] - a link between two packet LSRs
[TDM, TDM] - a link between two Digital Cross Connects [TDM, TDM] - a link between two Digital Cross Connects
[LSC, LSC] - a link between two OXCs [LSC, LSC] - a link between two OXCs
[PSC, TDM] - a link between a packet LSR and a Digital Cross Connect [PSC, TDM] - a link between a packet LSR and Digital Cross Connect
[PSC, LSC] - a link between a packet LSR and an OXC [PSC, LSC] - a link between a packet LSR and an OXC
[TDM, LSC] - a link between a Digital Cross Connect and an OXC [TDM, LSC] - a link between a Digital Cross Connect and an OXC
Both ends of a given TE link has to use the same way of carrying Both ends of a given TE link has to use the same way of carrying
label information over that link. Carrying label information on a label information over that link. Carrying label information on a
given TE link depends on the Interface Switching Capability at both given TE link depends on the Interface Switching Capability at both
ends of the link, and is determined as follows: ends of the link, and is determined as follows:
[PSC, PSC] - label is carried in the "shim" header [RFC3032] [PSC, PSC] - label is carried in the "shim" header [RFC3032]
[TDM, TDM] - label represents a TDM time slot [GMPLS-SONET-SDH] [TDM, TDM] - label represents a TDM time slot [GMPLS-SONET-SDH]
skipping to change at page 22, line 9 skipping to change at page 23, line 9
Interface Switching Capability Descriptor: Interface Switching Capability Descriptor:
Interface Switching Capability = PSC-1 Interface Switching Capability = PSC-1
Encoding = SDH Encoding = SDH
Max LSP Bandwidth[p] = 10 Gbps, for all p Max LSP Bandwidth[p] = 10 Gbps, for all p
6. Normative References 6. Normative References
[GMPLS-OSPF] Kompella, K., and Rekhter, Y. (Editors), "OSPF [GMPLS-OSPF] Kompella, K., and Rekhter, Y. (Editors), "OSPF
Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS", (work in progress) Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS", (work in progress)
[draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-11.txt]
[GMPLS-SIG] Berger, L. (Editor), "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label [GMPLS-SIG] Berger, L. (Editor), "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471,
January 2003 January 2003
[GMPLS-SONET-SDH] Mannie, E., and Papadimitriou, D. (Editors), [GMPLS-SONET-SDH] Mannie, E., and Papadimitriou, D. (Editors),
"Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching Extensions for SONET "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching Extensions for SONET
and SDH Control", [RFC Ed Queue] and SDH Control", [RFC Ed Queue] [draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-
sdh-08.txt]
[LINK-BUNDLE] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., and Berger, L., "Link [LINK-BUNDLE] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., and Berger, L., "Link
Bundling in MPLS Traffic Engineering", [RFC Ed Queue] Bundling in MPLS Traffic Engineering", [RFC Ed Queue] [draft-
ietf-mpls-bundle-04.txt]
[LMP] Lang, J. (Editor), "Link Management Protocol (LMP)", (work in [LMP] Lang, J. (Editor), "Link Management Protocol (LMP)", (work in
progress) progress) [draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-09.txt]
[LSP-HIER] Kompella, K., and Rekhter, Y., "LSP Hierarchy with [LSP-HIER] Kompella, K., and Rekhter, Y., "LSP Hierarchy with
Generalized MPLS TE", [RFC Ed Queue] Generalized MPLS TE", [RFC Ed Queue] [draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-
hierarchy-08.txt]
[OSPF-TE] Katz, D., Kompella, K. and Yeung, D., "Traffic Engineering [OSPF-TE] Katz, D., Kompella, K. and Yeung, D., "Traffic Engineering
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September 2003. (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September 2003.
[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.
[RFC3032] Rosen, E., et al, "MPLS Label Stack Encoding", RFC 3032, [RFC3032] Rosen, E., et al, "MPLS Label Stack Encoding", RFC 3032,
January 2001. January 2001.
7. Informative References 7. Informative References
[GMPLS-ISIS] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y. (Editors), "IS-IS Extensions [GMPLS-ISIS] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y. (Editors), "IS-IS Extensions
in Support of Generalized MPLS", (work in progress) in Support of Generalized MPLS", (work in progress) [draft-ietf-
isis-gmpls-extensions-16.txt]
[ISIS-TE] Smit, H., Li, T., "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic [ISIS-TE] Smit, H., Li, T., "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
Engineering", (work in progress) Engineering", (work in progress) [draft-ietf-isis-traffic-05.txt]
8. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations
The routing extensions proposed in this document do not raise any new There are a number of security concerns in implementing the
security concerns. extensions proposed here, particularly since these extensions will
potentially be used to control the underlying transport
infrastructure. It is vital that there be secure and/or
authenticated means of transfering this information among the
entities that require its use.
While this document proposes extensions, it does not state how these
extensions are implemented in routing protocols such as OSPF or
IS-IS. The documents that do state how routing protocols implement
these extensions [GMPLS-OSPF, GMPLS-ISIS] must also state how the
information is to be secured.
9. Acknowledgements 9. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Suresh Katukam, Jonathan Lang, The authors would like to thank Suresh Katukam, Jonathan Lang,
Zhi-Wei Lin, and Quaizar Vohra for their comments and contributions Zhi-Wei Lin, and Quaizar Vohra for their comments and contributions
to the document. Thanks too to Stephen Shew for the text regarding to the document. Thanks too to Stephen Shew for the text regarding
"Representing TE Link Capabilities". "Representing TE Link Capabilities".
10. Contributors 10. Contributors
 End of changes. 

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.23, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/