draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro-01.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro-02.txt 
CCAMP C. Margaria, Ed. CCAMP C. Margaria, Ed.
Internet-Draft Nokia Siemens Networks Internet-Draft Coriant GmbH
Intended status: Standards Track G. Martinelli Intended status: Standards Track G. Martinelli
Expires: August 28, 2013 Cisco Expires: January 16, 2014 Cisco
S. Balls S. Balls
B. Wright B. Wright
Metaswitch Metaswitch
February 24, 2013 July 15, 2013
LSP Attribute in ERO LSP Attribute in ERO
draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro-01 draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro-02
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
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 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). 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 28, 2013. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 16, 2014.
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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. ERO LSP Attribute Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. ERO Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. ERO LSP_ATTRIBUTE subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. ERO_ATTRIBUTE subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2. HOP Attributes TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.3. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. Recording Hop attribute per LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1. RRO Hop Attributes subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.2. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.2.1. Subobject presence rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.2.2. Reporting Compliance with ERO Hop Attributes . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
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].
Those route constraints are extended by a number of documents, Those route constraints are extended by a number of documents,
including element defined in [RFC6163], including element defined in [RFC6163],
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling], [I-D.ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling],
[I-D.dong-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-li-lb] or [I-D.dong-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-li-lb] or
[I-D.ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound]. [I-D.ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound], for example the
WSON_SIGNALING object, Metric and Objective Function subobjects.
RSVP already supports generic extension of LSP attributes in RSVP already supports generic extension of LSP attributes in
[RFC5420]. In order to support current and future ERO constraint [RFC5420]. In order to support current and future ERO constraint
extensions this document defines a mechanism to target LSP attributes extensions this document defines a mechanism to target generic
at a specific hop. 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
skipping to change at page 4, line 9 skipping to change at page 3, line 14
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. A
LSP attribute defined [RFC5420] should be expressed in ERO and SERO mechanism similar to LSP attribute defined [RFC5420] should be
objects. expressed in ERO and SERO objects. A new ERO sub-object is defined,
containing a list of generic Hop attributes. The mechanism defined
in this document limits itself to single HOP attributes, and does not
address attributes valid for a LSP section [[This can be revised
based on feedback]]
3. ERO LSP Attribute Subobject 3. ERO Attribute
The ERO LSP Attributes subobject may be carried in the ERO or SERO The ERO Attributes subobject may be carried in the ERO or SERO object
object if they are present. The subobject uses the standard format if they are present. The subobject uses the standard format of an
of an ERO subobject. ERO subobject.
3.1. ERO LSP_ATTRIBUTE subobject 3.1. ERO_ATTRIBUTE subobject
The length is variable and content MUST be the same as for the 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- 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 object limits the size of the LSP Attribute TLV to 250 bytes. The
typical size of currently defined and forthcoming LSP_ATTRIBUTE TLVs typical size of currently defined and forthcoming LSP_ATTRIBUTE TLVs
applicable to a specific hop (WSON_SIGNALING, OF and Metric) is not applicable to a specific hop (WSON_SIGNALING, OF and Metric) is not
foreseen to exceed this limit. foreseen to exceed this limit.
The ERO LSP attribute subobject is defined as follows: The ERO attribute subobject is defined as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type | Length | Reserved |R| |L| Type | Length | Reserved |R|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
// Attributes TLVs // // Attributes TLVs //
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
See [RFC3209] for a description of L parameters. The attributes TLV See [RFC3209] for a description of L parameters. The attributes TLV
are encoded as defined in [RFC5420] section 3. are encoded as defined in section Section 3.2.
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 defined in [RFC5420]. When set indicates required LSP
processed by the node, when cleared the LSP attributes are not attributes to be processed by the node, when cleared the LSP
required as described in Section 3.2. attributes are not required as described in Section 3.3.
Attributes TLVs as defined in [RFC5420] section 3. Attributes TLVs as defined in Section 3.2 .
3.2. Procedures 3.2. HOP Attributes TLVs
ERO Attributes carried by the new objects defined in this document
are encoded within TLVs. One or more TLVs may be present in each
object. There are no ordering rules for TLVs, and no interpretation
should be placed on the order in which TLVs are received.
Each TLV is encoded as follows.
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Value //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type The identifier of the TLV..
Length Indicates the total length of the TLV in octets. That is,
the combined length of the Type, Length, and Value fields, i.e.,
four plus the length of the Value field in octets. The entire TLV
MUST be padded with between zero and three trailing zeros to make
it four-octet aligned. The Length field does not count any
padding.
Value The data carried in the TLV.
3.3. Procedures
As described in [RFC3209] and [RFC3473] the ERO is managed as a list As described in [RFC3209] and [RFC3473] the ERO is managed as a list
where each hop information starts with a subobject identifying an where each hop information starts with a subobject identifying an
abstract node or link. The LSP attribute subobject must be appended abstract node or link. The ERO attribute subobject must be appended
after the existing subobjects defined in [RFC3209], [RFC3473], after the existing subobjects defined in [RFC3209], [RFC3473],
[RFC3477], [RFC4873], [RFC4874], [RFC5520] and [RFC5553]. Several [RFC3477], [RFC4873], [RFC4874], [RFC5520] and [RFC5553]. Several
LSP attribute subobject MAY be present, for each hop. ERO attribute subobject MAY be present, for each hop.
If a node is processing an LSP attribute subobject and does not If a node is processing an ERO attribute subobject and does not
support handling of the subobject it will behave as described in support handling of the subobject it will behave as described in
[RFC3209] when an unrecognized ERO subobject is encountered. This [RFC3209] when an unrecognized ERO subobject is encountered. This
node will return a PathErr with error code "Routing Error" and error node will return a PathErr with error code "Routing Error" and error
value "Bad EXPLICIT_ROUTE object" with the EXPLICIT_ROUTE object value "Bad EXPLICIT_ROUTE object" with the EXPLICIT_ROUTE object
included, truncated (on the left) to the offending unrecognized included, truncated (on the left) to the offending unrecognized
subobject. 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. section 4.2.
A node processing an LSP attribute subobject with an LSP_ATTRIBUTE A node processing an ERO attribute subobject with an HOP attribute
TLV longer than the ERO subobject SHOULD return a PathErr with error TLV longer than the ERO subobject SHOULD return a PathErr with error
code "Routing Error" and error value "Bad EXPLICIT_ROUTE object" with code "Routing Error" and error value "Bad EXPLICIT_ROUTE object" with
the EXPLICIT_ROUTE object included, truncated (on the left) to the the EXPLICIT_ROUTE object included, truncated (on the left) to the
offending malformed subobject. The processing of the LSP_ATTRIBUTE offending malformed subobject. The processing of the Hop attribute
TLVs should be described in the documents defining them. TLVs should be described in the documents defining them.
4. IANA Considerations 4. Recording Hop attribute per LSP
In some cases it is important to determine if an optional Hop
attribute has been processed by a node.
4.1. RRO Hop Attributes subobject
The RRO Hop Attributes subobject may be carried in the RECORD_ROUTE
object if it is present. The subobject uses the standard format of
an RRO subobject.
The RRO Hop attribute subobject is defined as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type | Length | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Attributes TLVs //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
See [RFC3209] for a description of L parameters. The attributes TLV
are encoded as defined in section Section 3.2.
Type x TBD by IANA.
Length The Length contains the total length of the subobject in
bytes, including the Type and Length fields. The Length MUST be
always divisible by 4.
Reserved Reserved, must be set to 0 when the subobject is inserted
in the RRO, MUST NOT be changed when a node process the RRO and
must be ignored on the node addressed by the preceding RRO
subobjects.
Attributes TLVs The processed or addition HOP attributes, using the
format defined in Section 3.2 .
4.2. Procedures
4.2.1. Subobject presence rule
The RRO rules defined in [RFC3209] are not changed. The RRO Hop
attribute subobject must be pushed after the RRO attribute subobject
(if present) defined in in [RFC5420]. The RRO Hop attribute
subobject MAX be present between a pait of subobject identifying LSR
or links. All such subobjects MUST be forwarded unmodified by
transit LSRs.
4.2.2. Reporting Compliance with ERO Hop Attributes
To report that an ERO Hop attribute has been considered, or to report
an additional attribute, an LSR MAY add a RRO Hop Attributes
subobject with the HOP Attribute used. The requirement to report
compliance MUST be specified in the document that defines the usage
of an Hop attribute. [[This is not the most efficient encoding, a
more efficient encoding would use a bit field ala RFC5420 ]]
5. IANA Considerations
TBD once a final approach has been chosen. TBD once a final approach has been chosen.
5. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
None. None.
6. Acknowledgments 7. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thanks Lou Berger for his directions and The authors would like to thanks Lou Berger for his directions and
Attila Takacs for inspiring this Attila Takacs for inspiring this
[I-D.kern-ccamp-rsvpte-hop-attributes]. The authors also thanks Dirk [I-D.kern-ccamp-rsvpte-hop-attributes]. The authors also thanks Dirk
Schroetter for his contribution to the initial versions of the Schroetter for his contribution to the initial versions of the
documents (version -00 up to -02). documents (version -00 up to -02).
7. References 8. References
7.1. 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.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching [RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
skipping to change at page 10, line 44 skipping to change at page 8, line 13
Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 5420, February 2009. Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 5420, February 2009.
[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 8.2. Informative References
[I-D.ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound] [I-D.ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound]
Ali, Z., Swallow, G., Filsfils, C., Fang, L., Kumaki, K., Ali, Z., Swallow, G., Filsfils, C., Fang, L., Kumaki, K.,
and R. Kunze, "Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic and R. Kunze, "Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) extension for signaling Objective Engineering (RSVP-TE) extension for signaling Objective
Function and Metric Bound", Function and Metric Bound", draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-
draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound-02 function-metric-bound-02 (work in progress), July 2012.
(work in progress), July 2012.
[I-D.dong-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-li-lb] [I-D.dong-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-li-lb]
Dong, J., Chen, M., and Z. Li, "GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions Dong, J., Chen, M., and Z. Li, "GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions
for Lock Instruct and Loopback", for Lock Instruct and Loopback", draft-dong-ccamp-rsvp-te-
draft-dong-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-li-lb-05 (work in mpls-tp-li-lb-05 (work in progress), December 2012.
progress), December 2012.
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling] [I-D.ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling]
Bernstein, G., Xu, S., Lee, Y., Martinelli, G., and H. Bernstein, G., Xu, S., Lee, Y., Martinelli, G., and H.
Harai, "Signaling Extensions for Wavelength Switched Harai, "Signaling Extensions for Wavelength Switched
Optical Networks", draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-05 Optical Networks", draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-06
(work in progress), February 2013. (work in progress), July 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-
draft-kern-ccamp-rsvpte-hop-attributes-00 (work in hop-attributes-00 (work in progress), October 2009.
progress), October 2009.
[RFC6163] Lee, Y., Bernstein, G., and W. Imajuku, "Framework for [RFC6163] Lee, Y., Bernstein, G., and W. Imajuku, "Framework for
GMPLS and Path Computation Element (PCE) Control of GMPLS and Path Computation Element (PCE) Control of
Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs)", RFC 6163, Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs)", RFC 6163,
April 2011. April 2011.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Cyril Margaria (editor) Cyril Margaria (editor)
Nokia Siemens Networks Coriant GmbH
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@coriant.com
Giovanni Martinelli Giovanni Martinelli
Cisco Cisco
via Philips 12 via Philips 12
Monza 20900 Monza 20900
IT IT
Phone: +39 039 209 2044 Phone: +39 039 209 2044
Email: giomarti@cisco.com Email: giomarti@cisco.com
Steve Balls Steve Balls
 End of changes. 37 change blocks. 
65 lines changed or deleted 161 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/