draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro-00.txt		draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro-01.txt
	CCAMP C. Margaria, Ed.		CCAMP C. Margaria, Ed.
	Internet-Draft Nokia Siemens Networks		Internet-Draft Nokia Siemens Networks
	Intended status: Standards Track G. Martinelli		Intended status: Standards Track G. Martinelli
	Expires: August 11, 2013 Cisco		Expires: August 28, 2013 Cisco
	S. Balls		S. Balls
	B. Wright		B. Wright
	Metaswitch		Metaswitch
	February 07, 2013		February 24, 2013
	LSP Attribute in ERO		LSP Attribute in ERO
	draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro-00		draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro-01
	Abstract		Abstract
	LSP attributes can be specified or recorded for whole path, but they		LSP attributes can be specified or recorded for whole path, but they
	cannot be targeted to a specific hop. This document proposes		cannot be targeted to a specific hop. This document proposes
	alternative ways to extend the semantic for RSVP ERO object to target		alternative ways to extend the semantic for RSVP ERO object to target
	LSP attributes to a specific hop.		LSP attributes to a specific hop.
	Status of this Memo		Status of this Memo
	skipping to change at page 1, line 37		skipping to change at page 1, line 37
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on August 11, 2013.		This Internet-Draft will expire on August 28, 2013.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2013 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
	skipping to change at page 2, line 14		skipping to change at page 2, line 14
	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of		include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
	described in the Simplified BSD License.		described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	1.1. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1.1. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	3. Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		3. ERO LSP Attribute Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	3.1. Non solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		3.1. ERO LSP_ATTRIBUTE subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	3.2. Extended ERO Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		3.2. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	3.2.1. Semantic of the Extended ERO object . . . . . . . . . 5		4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	3.2.2. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	3.2.3. Subobjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	3.2.4. Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched		Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched
	Paths (LSPs) can be route-constrained by making use of the Explicit		Paths (LSPs) can be route-constrained by making use of the Explicit
	Route (ERO) object and related sub-objects as defined in [RFC3209],		Route (ERO) object and related sub-objects as defined in [RFC3209],
	[RFC3473], [RFC3477], [RFC4873], [RFC4874], [RFC5520] and [RFC5553].		[RFC3473], [RFC3477], [RFC4873], [RFC4874], [RFC5520] and [RFC5553].
	This document proposes mechanisms to target LSP attributes at a		Those route constraints are extended by a number of documents,
	specific hop. This document presents several solutions for		including element defined in [RFC6163],
	discussion, final document will contains only one document after WG		[I-D.ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling],
	consensus.		[I-D.dong-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-li-lb] or
			[I-D.ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound].
			RSVP already supports generic extension of LSP attributes in
			[RFC5420]. In order to support current and future ERO constraint
			extensions this document defines a mechanism to target LSP attributes
			at a specific hop.
	1.1. Contributing Authors		1.1. Contributing Authors
	1.2. Requirements Language		1.2. Requirements Language
	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].
	2. Requirements		2. Requirements
	The requirement is to provide a generic mechanism to carry		The requirement is to provide a generic mechanism to carry
	information related to specific nodes when signaling an LSP. This		information related to specific nodes when signaling an LSP. This
	document does not restrict what that information can be used for.		document does not restrict what that information can be used for.
	LSP attribute defined [RFC5420] should be expressed in ERO and SERO		LSP attribute defined [RFC5420] should be expressed in ERO and SERO
	objects.		objects.
	3. Solutions		3. ERO LSP Attribute Subobject
	3.1. Non solution
	A solution using a specific ERO or SERO subobject is not used because
	the subobject length is limited to 8 bit, versus 16 bit for LSP
	ATTRIBUTES. This does not allow to put LSP ATTRIBUTE subobjects in
	ERO subobjects.
	3.2. Extended ERO Object
	The logic of the EXTENDED_EXPLICIT_ROUTE follows the one of SERO.The
	class of the EXTENDED_EXPLICIT_ROUTE object is xxx (of the form
	11bbbbbb). The EXTENDED_EXPLICIT_ROUTE object has the following
	format: Class = xxx, C_Type = 1 The EXTENDED_EXPLICIT_ROUTE object
	may be used if some node along the explicit route support this
	object. The EXTENDED_EXPLICIT_ROUTE object is assigned a class value
	of the form 11bbbbbb, so it is forwarded by nodes not supporting it.
	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
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| |
	// (Subobjects) //
	| |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Subobjects The contents of an EXTENDED_EXPLICIT_ROUTE object are a
	series of variable- length data items called subobjects. The
	subobjects are defined in section Section 3.2.3 below.
	3.2.1. Semantic of the Extended ERO object
	Extended ERO object is carried in Path messages and carries a list of
	hops extended with hop-specific information. It is structured as a
	sequence of hop identifier subobjects (to indicate the hop who should
	process the subsequent attributes) and a series of hop attributes
	(which may be mandatory or optional) for the specified hop to
	process.
	3.2.2. Procedures
	If a Path message contains multiple EXTENDED_EXPLICIT_ROUTE objects,
	only the first object is meaningful. Subsequent
	EXTENDED_EXPLICIT_ROUTE objects MAY be ignored and SHOULD NOT be
	propagated. An EXTENDED_EXPLICIT_ROUTE SHOULD contain at least 2
	subobjects. The first subobject MUST indicate a node or link that
	identifies a hop that should process the next subobject(s). The
	address used to identify the hop SHOULD also be listed in the ERO or
	an SERO. This ensures that the extended attribute is for a node or
	link along the LSP path. The second subobject SHOULD contains an
	extended node or link information. In this document this SHOULD be a
	LSP Attribute subobject.
	3.2.3. Subobjects
	The content of an EXTENDED_EXPLICIT_ROUTE are a series of variable
	length subobjects. Each subobject has the following form
	0 1 2
	0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--------//-----------+
	| Type | Length | (Subobject contents)|
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--------//-----------+
	The Type indicates the type of contents of the subobject. Currently
	defined values are:
	1 Hop identifier subobject containing an ERO subobject:
	IPv4 prefix
	IPv6 prefix
	Unnumbered Interface ID
	Autonomous system number
	Path Key with 32-bit PCE ID
	Path Key with 128-bit PCE ID
	Per-hop attributes:
	XX LSP Attribute
	Length The Length contains the total length of the subobject in
	bytes, including the Type and Length . The Length MUST be at least
	4, and MUST be a multiple of 4.
	3.2.3.1. Hop identifier
	The Hop identifier subobject contains exactly one ERO subobject
	identifying a hop. The value of the subobject is a copy of the ERO
	subobject definition. The format of the subobject is as follow:
	0 1 2 3
	0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Type | Length |L| sub Type |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Sub Length | (Subobject contents) ... |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Type 0x01 Hop Identifier
	Length The Length contains the total length of the subobject in
	bytes, including the Type and Length fields.
	Sub type The ERO subobject type, the same as the ERO subobject type.
	the ERO type defined are :
	1 IPv4 prefix
	2 IPv6 prefix
	3 Reserved
	4 Unnumbered Interface ID
	32 Autonomous system number
	33 Reserved
	37 Reserved
	64 Path Key with 32-bit PCE ID
	65 Path Key with 128-bit PCE ID
	Sub length The ERO subobject type, the same as the ERO subobject		The ERO LSP Attributes subobject may be carried in the ERO or SERO
	length. It its unchanged compared to the ERO subobject		object if they are present. The subobject uses the standard format
	definition.		of an ERO subobject.
	Subobject contents The ERO subobject content, it its unchanged		3.1. ERO LSP_ATTRIBUTE subobject
	compared to the ERO subobject definition.
	3.2.3.2. Hop LSP Attribute		The length is variable and content MUST be the same as for the
			LSP_ATTRIBUTE object with Attributes TLVs. The size of the ERO sub-
			object limits the size of the LSP Attribute TLV to 250 bytes. The
			typical size of currently defined and forthcoming LSP_ATTRIBUTE TLVs
			applicable to a specific hop (WSON_SIGNALING, OF and Metric) is not
			foreseen to exceed this limit.
	The LSP attribute subobject contains information targeted at the hop		The ERO LSP attribute subobject is defined as follows:
	identified by the preceding hop identifier subobject.
	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 | Reserved |R|		|L| Type | Length | Reserved |R|
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| |		| |
	// Attributes TLVs //		// Attributes TLVs //
	| |		| |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	The attributes TLV are encoded as defined in [RFC5420] section 3.		See [RFC3209] for a description of L parameters. The attributes TLV
			are encoded as defined in [RFC5420] section 3.
	Type x TBD by IANA.		Type x TBD by IANA.
	Length The Length contains the total length of the subobject in		Length The Length contains the total length of the subobject in
	bytes, including the Type and Length fields. The Length MUST be		bytes, including the Type and Length fields. The Length MUST be
	always divisible by 4.		always divisible by 4.
	Reserved Reserved, must be set to 0 when the subobject is inserted		Reserved Reserved, must be set to 0 when the subobject is inserted
	in the ERO, MUST NOT be changed when a node process the ERO and		in the ERO, MUST NOT be changed when a node process the ERO and
	must be ignored on the node addressed by the preceding ERO		must be ignored on the node addressed by the preceding ERO
	subobjects		subobjects.
	R This bit reflects the LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTE and LSP_ATTRIBUTE		R This bit reflects the LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTE and LSP_ATTRIBUTE
	semantic. When set indicates required LSP attributes to be		semantic. When set indicates required LSP attributes to be
	processed by the node, when cleared the LSP attributes are not		processed by the node, when cleared the LSP attributes are not
	required as described in Section 3.2.3.3.		required as described in Section 3.2.
	3.2.3.3. Processing		Attributes TLVs as defined in [RFC5420] section 3.
	Following [RFC3209] and [RFC3473] the Extended ERO is managed as a		3.2. Procedures
	list where each hop information starts with a subobject identifying
	an abstract node or link. The LSP attribute subobject must be		As described in [RFC3209] and [RFC3473] the ERO is managed as a list
	appended after the hop identifier subobject (which follows the		where each hop information starts with a subobject identifying an
	formatting of the objects defined in [RFC3209], [RFC3473], [RFC3477],		abstract node or link. The LSP attribute subobject must be appended
	[RFC4873], [RFC4874], [RFC5520] and [RFC5553]. Several LSP attribute		after the existing subobjects defined in [RFC3209], [RFC3473],
	subobject MAY be present for each hop identification object.		[RFC3477], [RFC4873], [RFC4874], [RFC5520] and [RFC5553]. Several
			LSP attribute subobject MAY be present, for each hop.
			If a node is processing an LSP attribute subobject and does not
			support handling of the subobject it will behave as described in
			[RFC3209] when an unrecognized ERO subobject is encountered. This
			node will return a PathErr with error code "Routing Error" and error
			value "Bad EXPLICIT_ROUTE object" with the EXPLICIT_ROUTE object
			included, truncated (on the left) to the offending unrecognized
			subobject.
	When the R bit is set a node MUST examine the attribute TLV present		When the R bit is set a node MUST examine the attribute TLV present
	in the subobject following the rules described in [RFC5420] section		in the subobject following the rules described in [RFC5420] section
	5.2. When the R bit is not set a node MUST examine the attribute TLV		5.2. When the R bit is not set a node MUST examine the attribute TLV
	present in the subobject following the rules described in [RFC5420]		present in the subobject following the rules described in [RFC5420]
	section 4.2. If more than one ERO LSP attribute subobject having the		section 4.2.
	R bit set is present, the first one MUST be processed and the others
	SHOULD be ignored. If more than one ERO LSP attribute subject having
	the R bit cleared is present for the same hop identification object,
	then the first one MUST be processed and the others SHOULD be
	ignored.
	3.2.4. Processing
	A node receiving a Path message containing an EXTENDED_EXPLICIT_ROUTE
	object must determine if the extended hop information is applicable
	for this node. The node performs the following steps:
	1. The node receiving the RSVP message MUST first evaluate if the
	ERO object is present. If the ERO object is not present it has
	received the message in error and SHOULD return a pathError
	message.
	2. Second the node MUST read the first subobject. If the node is
	not part of the abstract node described by the first subobject,
	the processing stops.
	3. If there is no second subobject this indicates the end of the
	extended ERO. The extended ERO SHOULD be removed from the Path
	message. A new extended ERO MAY be added to the Path message.
	4. Next the node evaluates the second subobject.
	A. If the subobject identified an abstract node and the node is
	also part of the abstract node, then the node deletes the
	first subobject and continue processing with step 3.
	B. If the subobject identified an abstract node and the node is
	not part of the abstract node, then the extended ERO is
	invalid and the node SHOULD return a PathErr with error code
	"Routing Error" and error value "Bad EXTENDED_EXPLICIT_ROUTE
	object" with the EXTENDED_EXPLICIT_ROUTE object included,
	truncated (on the left) to the offending unrecognized
	subobject
	C. If the subobject is an LSP Attribute subobject it processes
	it according to the rules for that subobject and removes it
	from the extended ERO. If the extended ERO does not contain
	further subject it SHOULD be removed from the Path message.
	A new extended ERO MAY be added to the Path message.
	If a node finds a hop identification object which matches the local
	router handling of the subobject it will behave as described in
	[RFC3209] when an unrecognized ERO subobject is encountered. This		A node processing an LSP attribute subobject with an LSP_ATTRIBUTE
	node will return a PathErr with error code "Routing Error" and error		TLV longer than the ERO subobject SHOULD return a PathErr with error
	value "Bad EXTENDED_EXPLICIT_ROUTE object" with the		code "Routing Error" and error value "Bad EXPLICIT_ROUTE object" with
	EXTENDED_EXPLICIT_ROUTE object included, truncated (on the left) to		the EXPLICIT_ROUTE object included, truncated (on the left) to the
	the offending unrecognized subobject.		offending malformed subobject. The processing of the LSP_ATTRIBUTE
			TLVs should be described in the documents defining them.
	4. IANA Considerations		4. IANA Considerations
	TBD once a final approach has been chosen.		TBD once a final approach has been chosen.
	5. Security Considerations		5. Security Considerations
	None.		None.
	6. Acknowledgments		6. Acknowledgments
	skipping to change at page 14, line 46		skipping to change at page 10, line 46
	[RFC5520] Bradford, R., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel, "Preserving		[RFC5520] Bradford, R., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel, "Preserving
	Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path Computation		Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path Computation
	Using a Path-Key-Based Mechanism", RFC 5520, April 2009.		Using a Path-Key-Based Mechanism", RFC 5520, April 2009.
	[RFC5553] Farrel, A., Bradford, R., and JP. Vasseur, "Resource		[RFC5553] Farrel, A., Bradford, R., and JP. Vasseur, "Resource
	Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Extensions for Path Key		Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Extensions for Path Key
	Support", RFC 5553, May 2009.		Support", RFC 5553, May 2009.
	7.2. Informative References		7.2. Informative References
			[I-D.ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound]
			Ali, Z., Swallow, G., Filsfils, C., Fang, L., Kumaki, K.,
			and R. Kunze, "Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
			Engineering (RSVP-TE) extension for signaling Objective
			Function and Metric Bound",
			draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound-02
			(work in progress), July 2012.
			[I-D.dong-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-li-lb]
			Dong, J., Chen, M., and Z. Li, "GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions
			for Lock Instruct and Loopback",
			draft-dong-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-li-lb-05 (work in
			progress), December 2012.
			[I-D.ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling]
			Bernstein, G., Xu, S., Lee, Y., Martinelli, G., and H.
			Harai, "Signaling Extensions for Wavelength Switched
			Optical Networks", draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-05
			(work in progress), February 2013.
	[I-D.kern-ccamp-rsvpte-hop-attributes]		[I-D.kern-ccamp-rsvpte-hop-attributes]
	Kern, A. and A. Takacs, "Encoding of Attributes of LSP		Kern, A. and A. Takacs, "Encoding of Attributes of LSP
	intermediate hops using RSVP-TE",		intermediate hops using RSVP-TE",
	draft-kern-ccamp-rsvpte-hop-attributes-00 (work in		draft-kern-ccamp-rsvpte-hop-attributes-00 (work in
	progress), October 2009.		progress), October 2009.
			[RFC6163] Lee, Y., Bernstein, G., and W. Imajuku, "Framework for
			GMPLS and Path Computation Element (PCE) Control of
			Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs)", RFC 6163,
			April 2011.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Cyril Margaria (editor)		Cyril Margaria (editor)
	Nokia Siemens Networks		Nokia Siemens Networks
	St Martin Strasse 76		St Martin Strasse 76
	Munich, 81541		Munich, 81541
	Germany		Germany
	Phone: +49 89 5159 16934		Phone: +49 89 5159 16934
	Email: cyril.margaria@nsn.com		Email: cyril.margaria@nsn.com
End of changes. 21 change blocks.
	224 lines changed or deleted		90 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/