draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown-07.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown-08.txt 
Network Working Group Z. Ali
CCAMP Working Group Internet Draft JP. Vasseur
Internet Draft Category: Informational A. Zamfir
Zafar Ali Creater: October 29, 2008 Cisco Systems, Inc.
Jean-Philippe Vasseur Expires: April 29, 2009 J. Newton
Anca Zamfir
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Jonathan Newton
Cable and Wireless Cable and Wireless
Category: Informational
Expires: April 27, 2009 October 28, 2008
draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown-07.txt
Graceful Shutdown in MPLS and Generalized MPLS Graceful Shutdown in MPLS and Generalized MPLS
Traffic Engineering Networks Traffic Engineering Networks
draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown-08.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that
any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is
aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she
becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of
BCP 79. 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
skipping to change at page 1, line 45 skipping to change at page 1, line 39
documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-
Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work
in progress." 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 January 03, 2009.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown-07.txt October 07
Abstract Abstract
MPLS-TE Graceful Shutdown is a method for explicitly notifying MPLS-TE Graceful Shutdown is a method for explicitly notifying
the nodes in a Traffic Engineering (TE) enabled network that the the nodes in a Traffic Engineering (TE) enabled network that the
TE capability on a link or on an entire Label Switching Router TE capability on a link or on an entire Label Switching Router
(LSR) is going to be disabled. MPLS-TE graceful shutdown (LSR) is going to be disabled. MPLS-TE graceful shutdown
mechanisms are tailored toward addressing planned outage in the mechanisms are tailored toward addressing planned outage in the
network. network.
This document provides requirements and protocol mechanisms to This document provides requirements and protocol mechanisms to
reduce/eliminate traffic disruption in the event of a planned reduce/eliminate traffic disruption in the event of a planned
shutdown of a network resource. These operations are equally shutdown of a network resource. These operations are equally
applicable to both MPLS and its Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) applicable to both MPLS and its Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
extensions. extensions.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction....................................................2 1. Introduction....................................................2
2. Terminology.....................................................3 2. Terminology.....................................................3
3. Requirements for Graceful Shutdown..............................4 3. Requirements for Graceful Shutdown..............................3
4. Mechanisms for Graceful Shutdown................................5 4. Mechanisms for Graceful Shutdown................................4
4.1 OSPF/ ISIS Mechanisms for graceful shutdown..................5 4.1 OSPF/ ISIS Mechanisms for graceful shutdown..................5
4.2 RSVP-TE Signaling Mechanisms for graceful shutdown...........6 4.2 RSVP-TE Signaling Mechanisms for graceful shutdown...........6
5. Security Considerations.........................................8 5. Security Considerations.........................................8
6. IANA Considerations.............................................8 6. IANA Considerations.............................................8
7. Acknowledgments.................................................8 7. Acknowledgments.................................................8
8. Reference.......................................................8 8. Reference.......................................................9
8.1 Normative Reference..........................................8 8.1 Normative Reference..........................................9
8.2 Informative Reference........................................9 8.2 Informative Reference........................................9
9. Authors' Address:..............................................10 9. Authors' Addresses.............................................10
10. Intellectual Property Considerations..........................10 10. Intellectual Property Considerations..........................11
11. Disclaimer of Validity........................................11 11. Disclaimer of Validity........................................11
12. Copyright Statement...........................................11 12. Copyright Statement...........................................11
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
When outages in a network are planned (e.g. for maintenance When outages in a network are planned (e.g. for maintenance
purpose), some mechanisms can be used to avoid traffic purpose), some mechanisms can be used to avoid traffic
disruption. This is in contrast with unplanned network element disruption. This is in contrast with unplanned network element
failure, where traffic disruption can be minimized thanks to failure, where traffic disruption can be minimized thanks to
recovery mechanisms but may not be avoided. Hence, a Service recovery mechanisms but may not be avoided. Hence, a Service
Provider may desire to gracefully (temporarily or indefinitely) Provider may desire to gracefully (temporarily or indefinitely)
remove a TE Link, a group of TE Links or an entire node for remove a TE Link, a group of TE Links or an entire node for
administrative reasons such as link maintenance, administrative reasons such as link maintenance,
software/hardware upgrade at a node or significant TE software/hardware upgrade at a node or significant TE
configuration changes. In all these cases, the goal is to configuration changes. In all these cases, the goal is to
minimize the impact on the traffic carried over TE LSPs in the minimize the impact on the traffic carried over TE LSPs in the
network by triggering notifications so as to gracefully reroute network by triggering notifications so as to gracefully reroute
draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown-07.txt October 07
such flows before the administrative procedures are started. such flows before the administrative procedures are started.
These operations are equally applicable to both MPLS and its These operations are equally applicable to both MPLS and its
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) extensions. Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) extensions.
Graceful shutdown of a resource may require several steps. These Graceful shutdown of a resource may require several steps. These
steps can be broadly divided into two sets: disabling the steps can be broadly divided into two sets: disabling the
resource in the control plane and removing the resource for resource in the control plane and removing the resource for
forwarding. The node initiating the graceful shutdown condition forwarding. The node initiating the graceful shutdown condition
is expected to introduce a delay between disabling the resource is expected to introduce a delay between disabling the resource
in the control plane and removing the resource for forwarding. in the control plane and removing the resource for forwarding.
skipping to change at page 3, line 35 skipping to change at page 3, line 17
resource. As mentioned earlier, the graceful shutdown of the resource. As mentioned earlier, the graceful shutdown of the
Traffic Engineering capability on a resource could be Traffic Engineering capability on a resource could be
incorporated in the shutdown operation of an interface, but it is incorporated in the shutdown operation of an interface, but it is
a separate step that is taken before the IGP on the link is a separate step that is taken before the IGP on the link is
brought down and before the interface is brought down at brought down and before the interface is brought down at
different layers. This document only addresses TE nodes and TE different layers. This document only addresses TE nodes and TE
resources. resources.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
LSR - Label Switching Router. The terms node and LSR are used Border node: Ingress LSR of an LSP segment (S-LSP).
interchangeably in this document.
GMPLS - The term GMPLS is used in this document to refer to GMPLS: The term GMPLS is used in this document to refer to
packet MPLS-TE, as well as GMPLS extensions to MPLS-TE. packet MPLS-TE, as well as GMPLS extensions to MPLS-TE.
LSP - An MPLS-TE/ GMPLS-TE Label Switched Path.
Head-end node: Ingress LSR that initiated signaling for the Path. Head-end node: Ingress LSR that initiated signaling for the Path.
Border node: Ingress LSR of an LSP segment (S-LSP). Last resort resource: If a path to a destination from a given
head-end node cannot be found upon removal of a resource (e.g.,
TE link, TE node), the resource is called last resort to reach
that destination from the given head-end node.
LSP: An MPLS-TE/ GMPLS-TE Label Switched Path.
LSR: Label Switching Router. The terms node and LSR are used
interchangeably in this document.
Path Computation Element (PCE): An entity that computes the Path Computation Element (PCE): An entity that computes the
routes on behalf of its clients (PCC). routes on behalf of its clients (PCC).
TE Link - The term TE link refers to single or a bundle of TE Link: The term TE link refers to single or a bundle of
physical link(s) or FA-LSP(s) on which traffic engineering is physical link(s) or FA-LSP(s) on which traffic engineering is
enabled [RFC4206], [RFC4201]. enabled [RFC4206], [RFC4201].
Last resort resource: If a path to a destination from a given
head-end node cannot be found upon removal of a resource (e.g.,
draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown-07.txt October 07
TE link, TE node), the resource is called last resort to reach
that destination from the given head-end node.
3. Requirements for Graceful Shutdown 3. Requirements for Graceful Shutdown
This section lists the requirements for graceful shutdown in the This section lists the requirements for graceful shutdown in the
context of GMPLS Traffic Engineering. context of GMPLS Traffic Engineering.
- Graceful shutdown is required to address graceful removal of - Graceful shutdown is required to address graceful removal of
one TE link, one component link within a bundled TE link, a set one TE link, one component link within a bundled TE link, a set
of TE links, a set of component links, label resource(s) or an of TE links, a set of component links, label resource(s) or an
entire node. entire node.
skipping to change at page 4, line 52 skipping to change at page 4, line 36
domain and TE LSPs spanning multiple domains. Here, a domain is domain and TE LSPs spanning multiple domains. Here, a domain is
defined as either an IGP area or an Autonomous System [RFC4726]. defined as either an IGP area or an Autonomous System [RFC4726].
- Graceful shutdown is equally applicable to GMPLS-TE, as well as - Graceful shutdown is equally applicable to GMPLS-TE, as well as
packet-based (MPLS) TE LSPs. packet-based (MPLS) TE LSPs.
- In order to make rerouting effective, it is required that when - In order to make rerouting effective, it is required that when
a node initiates the graceful shutdown of a resource, it a node initiates the graceful shutdown of a resource, it
identifies to all other network nodes the TE resource under identifies to all other network nodes the TE resource under
graceful shutdown. graceful shutdown.
- Depending on switching technology, it may be possible to - Depending on switching technology, it may be possible to
shutdown a label resource, e.g., shutting down a lambda in a shutdown a label resource, e.g., shutting down a lambda in a
Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) node. Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) node.
draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown-07.txt October 07
4. Mechanisms for Graceful Shutdown 4. Mechanisms for Graceful Shutdown
An IGP only solution based on [RFC3630], [RFC3784], [RFC4203] and An IGP only solution based on [RFC3630], [RFC5305], [RFC4203] and
[RFC4205] are not applicable when dealing with Inter-area and [RFC5307] are not applicable when dealing with Inter-area and
Inter-AS traffic engineering, as IGP LSA/LSP flooding is Inter-AS traffic engineering, as IGP LSA/LSP flooding is
restricted to IGP areas/levels. Consequently, RSVP based restricted to IGP areas/levels. Consequently, RSVP based
mechanisms are required to cope with TE LSPs spanning multiple mechanisms are required to cope with TE LSPs spanning multiple
domains. At the same time, RSVP mechanisms only convey the domains. At the same time, RSVP mechanisms only convey the
information for the transiting LSPs to the router along the information for the transiting LSPs to the router along the
upstream Path and not to all nodes in the network. Furthermore, upstream Path and not to all nodes in the network. Furthermore,
graceful shutdown notification via IGP flooding is required to graceful shutdown notification via IGP flooding is required to
discourage a node from establishing new LSPs through the discourage a node from establishing new LSPs through the
resources being shutdown. In the following sections the resources being shutdown. In the following sections the
complementary mechanisms for RSVP-TE and IGP for Graceful complementary mechanisms for RSVP-TE and IGP for Graceful
skipping to change at page 5, line 35 skipping to change at page 5, line 20
delay to allow network convergence and only then use the delay to allow network convergence and only then use the
signaling mechanism described in Section 4.2. signaling mechanism described in Section 4.2.
4.1 OSPF/ ISIS Mechanisms for graceful shutdown 4.1 OSPF/ ISIS Mechanisms for graceful shutdown
The procedures provided in this section are equally applicable to The procedures provided in this section are equally applicable to
OSPF and ISIS. OSPF and ISIS.
OSPF and ISIS procedure for graceful shutdown of TE link(s) is OSPF and ISIS procedure for graceful shutdown of TE link(s) is
similar to graceful restart of OSPF and ISIS as described in similar to graceful restart of OSPF and ISIS as described in
[RFC4203] and [RFC4205], respectively. Specifically, the node [RFC4203] and [RFC5307], respectively. Specifically, the node
where graceful-shutdown of a link is desired originates the TE where graceful-shutdown of a link is desired originates the TE
LSA/LSP containing Link TLV for the link under graceful shutdown LSA/LSP containing Link TLV for the link under graceful shutdown
with Traffic Engineering metric set to 0xffffffff, 0 as with Traffic Engineering metric set to 0xffffffff, 0 as
unreserved bandwidth, and if the link has LSC or FSC as its unreserved bandwidth, and if the link has LSC or FSC as its
Switching Capability then also with 0 as Max LSP Bandwidth. A Switching Capability then also with 0 as Max LSP Bandwidth. A
node may also specify a value for Minimum LSP bandwidth which is node may also specify a value for Minimum LSP bandwidth which is
greater than the available bandwidth. This would discourage new greater than the available bandwidth. This would discourage new
LSP establishment through the link under graceful shutdown. LSP establishment through the link under graceful shutdown.
If graceful shutdown procedure is performed for a component link If graceful shutdown procedure is performed for a component link
within a TE Link bundle and it is not the last component link within a TE Link bundle and it is not the last component link
available within the TE link, the link attributes associated with available within the TE link, the link attributes associated with
the TE link are recomputed. Similarly, If graceful shutdown the TE link are recomputed. Similarly, If graceful shutdown
procedure is performed on a label resource within a TE Link, the procedure is performed on a label resource within a TE Link, the
link attributes associated with the TE link are recomputed. If link attributes associated with the TE link are recomputed. If
the removal of the component link or label resource results in a the removal of the component link or label resource results in a
significant bandwidth change event, a new LSA is originated with significant bandwidth change event, a new LSA is originated with
the new traffic parameters. If the last component link is being the new traffic parameters. If the last component link is being
shutdown, the routing procedure related to TE link removal is shutdown, the routing procedure related to TE link removal is
used. used.
draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown-07.txt October 07
Neighbors of the node where graceful shutdown procedure is in Neighbors of the node where graceful shutdown procedure is in
progress continues to advertise the actual unreserved bandwidth progress continues to advertise the actual unreserved bandwidth
of the TE links from the neighbors to that node, without any of the TE links from the neighbors to that node, without any
routing adjacency change. routing adjacency change.
When graceful shutdown at node level is desired, the node in When graceful shutdown at node level is desired, the node in
question follows the procedure specified in the previous section question follows the procedure specified in the previous section
for all TE Links. for all TE Links.
4.2 RSVP-TE Signaling Mechanisms for graceful shutdown 4.2 RSVP-TE Signaling Mechanisms for graceful shutdown
skipping to change at page 7, line 5 skipping to change at page 6, line 47
initiating this action triggers a PathErr message with the error initiating this action triggers a PathErr message with the error
code "Reroute" and the new error value of "Label resource code "Reroute" and the new error value of "Label resource
Graceful Shutdown required" for the affected LSP. The PathErr Graceful Shutdown required" for the affected LSP. The PathErr
message includes in the ERROR_SPEC the TE Link ID address. message includes in the ERROR_SPEC the TE Link ID address.
The "Reroute" error code for the ERROR SPEC object is defined in The "Reroute" error code for the ERROR SPEC object is defined in
[LSP-REROUTE]. This document defines following four error value [LSP-REROUTE]. This document defines following four error value
for the "Reroute" error code [To Be Confirmed (TBC) by IANA upon for the "Reroute" error code [To Be Confirmed (TBC) by IANA upon
publication of this document]: publication of this document]:
draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown-07.txt October 07
Error-value Meaning Reference Error-value Meaning Reference
2 (TBC) Node Graceful Shutdown required This doc 2 (TBC) Node Graceful Shutdown required This doc
3 (TBC) TE link Graceful Shutdown required This doc 3 (TBC) TE link Graceful Shutdown required This doc
4 (TBC) Component link Graceful Shutdown required This doc 4 (TBC) Component link Graceful Shutdown required This doc
5 (TBC) Label resource Graceful Shutdown required This doc 5 (TBC) Label resource Graceful Shutdown required This doc
The PathErr message includes in the ERROR_SPEC the TE Link ID The PathErr message includes in the ERROR_SPEC the TE Link ID
address. address.
If unbundled TE link, component link of a bundled TE link, entire If unbundled TE link, component link of a bundled TE link, entire
bundled TE link, or label resource of a TE link is being bundled TE link, or label resource of a TE link is being
gracefully shutdown, the PathErr message includes the ERROR_SPEC gracefully shutdown, the PathErr message includes the ERROR_SPEC
object containing IP address of the TE Link being gracefully object containing IP address of the TE Link being gracefully
shutdown. If TE link is unnumbered, the PathErr message includes shutdown. If TE link is unnumbered, the PathErr message includes
the ERROR_SPEC object containing unnumbered ID and TE node ID for the ERROR_SPEC object containing unnumbered ID and TE node ID for
the TE Link being gracefully shutdown. Similarly, if the TE node the TE Link being gracefully shutdown. Similarly, if the TE node
skipping to change at page 8, line 5 skipping to change at page 8, line 5
procedure received path setup request for an existing tunnel, it procedure received path setup request for an existing tunnel, it
may allow signaling for it. This is to allow resource being may allow signaling for it. This is to allow resource being
gracefully shutdown as a "last resort". The node initiating the gracefully shutdown as a "last resort". The node initiating the
graceful shutdown procedure can distinguish between new and graceful shutdown procedure can distinguish between new and
existing tunnels based on the tunnel ID in the SESSION object. existing tunnels based on the tunnel ID in the SESSION object.
Time or decision for removal of the resource being shutdown from Time or decision for removal of the resource being shutdown from
forwarding is based on a local decision at the node initiating forwarding is based on a local decision at the node initiating
the graceful shutdown procedure. the graceful shutdown procedure.
draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown-07.txt October 07
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
This document introduces two new error values for "Reroute" error This document introduces two new error values for "Reroute" error
code of the ERROR SPEC object defined in [LSP-REROUTE]. This code of the ERROR SPEC object defined in [LSP-REROUTE]. This
document also introduces ways to make resources unavailable for document also introduces ways to make resources unavailable for
the control plane. It is therefore recommended that procedures in the control plane. It is therefore recommended that procedures in
[RFC2747], which provides mechanisms to protect against external [RFC2747], which provides mechanisms to protect against external
agents compromising the RSVP signaling state in an RSVP agent, be agents compromising the RSVP signaling state in an RSVP agent, be
used. Specifically, [RFC2747] mechanisms provide some degree of used. Specifically, [RFC2747] mechanisms provide some degree of
protection to the head-end node or border node RSVP agent against protection to the head-end node or border node RSVP agent against
skipping to change at page 8, line 30 skipping to change at page 8, line 28
specified in [LSP-REROUTE], [RFC2747], [RFC2205], [RFC3209], specified in [LSP-REROUTE], [RFC2747], [RFC2205], [RFC3209],
[RFC4736], [RFC3471], [RFC3473] and [MPLS-GMPLS-SECURITY] remain [RFC4736], [RFC3471], [RFC3473] and [MPLS-GMPLS-SECURITY] remain
relevant and suffice. relevant and suffice.
This document relies on existing procedures for advertisement of This document relies on existing procedures for advertisement of
TE LSA/LSP containing Link TLV. Tampering with TE LSAs may have TE LSA/LSP containing Link TLV. Tampering with TE LSAs may have
an effect on traffic engineering computations, and it is an effect on traffic engineering computations, and it is
suggested that any mechanisms used for securing the transmission suggested that any mechanisms used for securing the transmission
of normal OSPF LSAs/ ISIS LSPs be applied equally to all Opaque of normal OSPF LSAs/ ISIS LSPs be applied equally to all Opaque
LSAs/ LSPs this document uses. In summary, existing security LSAs/ LSPs this document uses. In summary, existing security
considerations specified in [RFC3630], [RFC3784], [RFC4203], considerations specified in [RFC3630], [RFC5305], [RFC4203],
[RFC4205] and [MPLS-GMPLS-SECURITY] remain relevant and suffice. [RFC5307] and [MPLS-GMPLS-SECURITY] remain relevant and suffice.
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
The "Reroute" error code for the ERROR SPEC object is defined in The "Reroute" error code for the ERROR SPEC object is defined in
[LSP-REROUTE]. This document defines following four error value [LSP-REROUTE]. This document defines following four error value
for the "Reroute" error code [To Be Confirmed (TBC) by IANA upon for the "Reroute" error code [To Be Confirmed (TBC) by IANA upon
publication of this document]: publication of this document]:
Error-value Meaning Reference Error-value Meaning Reference
2 (TBC) Node Graceful Shutdown required This doc 2 (TBC) Node Graceful Shutdown required This doc
skipping to change at page 9, line 4 skipping to change at page 9, line 8
7. Acknowledgments 7. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel for his detailed The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel for his detailed
comments and suggestions. The authors would also like to comments and suggestions. The authors would also like to
acknowledge useful comments from David Ward, Sami Boutros, and acknowledge useful comments from David Ward, Sami Boutros, and
Dimitri Papadimitriou. Dimitri Papadimitriou.
8. Reference 8. Reference
8.1 Normative Reference 8.1 Normative Reference
draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown-07.txt October 07
[RFC3209] Awduche D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li T., Srinivasan, V., [RFC3209] Awduche D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li T., Srinivasan, V.,
Swallow, G., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC Swallow, G., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels",
3209, December 2001. RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC4736] Jean-Philippe Vasseur, et al "Reoptimization of MPLS [RFC4736] Jean-Philippe Vasseur, et al "Reoptimization of MPLS
Traffic Engineering loosely routed LSP paths", RFC 4736, November Traffic Engineering loosely routed LSP paths", RFC 4736,
2006. November 2006.
[LSP-REROUTE] Berger, L., Papadimitriou, D., and J. Vasseur, [LSP-REROUTE] Berger, L., Papadimitriou, D., and J. Vasseur,
"PathErr Message Triggered MPLS and GMPLS LSP Reroute", draft- "PathErr Message Triggered MPLS and GMPLS LSP Reroute",
ietf-mpls-gmpls-lsp-reroute-01 (work in progress) September 2008. draft-ietf-mpls-gmpls-lsp-reroute, work in progress.
8.2 Informative Reference 8.2 Informative Reference
[RFC3630] Katz D., Kompella K., Yeung D., "Traffic Engineering [RFC2205] Braden, R. Ed. et al, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September 2003. Version 1, Functional Specification", RFC 2205, December
[RFC3784] Smit, H. and T. Li, "Intermediate System to
Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions for Traffic Engineering
(TE)", RFC 3784, June 2004.
[RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF
Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005.
[RFC4205] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Intermediate
System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions in Support of
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4205,
October 2005.
[RFC2205] Braden, R. Ed. et al, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol
(RSVP) Version 1, Functional Specification", RFC 2205, December
1997. 1997.
[RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label [RFC2747] Baker, F., Lindell, B., and M. Talwar, "RSVP Cryptographic
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, Authentication", RFC 2747, January 2000.
[RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471,
January 2003. January 2003.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label [RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC4726] Farrel A, Vasseur, J.-P., Ayyangar A., "A Framework for [RFC3630] Katz D., Kompella K., Yeung D., "Traffic Engineering
Inter-Domain MPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 4726, November 2006. (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September
2003.
[RFC4201] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., Berger, L., "Link Bundling [RFC4201] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., Berger, L., "Link Bundling in
in MPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 4201, October 2005. MPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 4201, October 2005.
[RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005.
[RFC4206] Kompella K., Rekhter Y., "Label Switched Paths (LSP) [RFC4206] Kompella K., Rekhter Y., "Label Switched Paths (LSP)
Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206, October 2005. (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206, October 2005.
draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown-07.txt October 07 [RFC4726] Farrel A, Vasseur, J.-P., Ayyangar A., "A Framework for
Inter-Domain MPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 4726, November
2006.
[RFC2747] Baker, F., Lindell, B., and M. Talwar, "RSVP [RFC5305] Smit, H. and T. Li, "Intermediate System to Intermediate
Cryptographic Authentication", RFC 2747, January 2000. System (IS-IS) Extensions for Traffic Engineering (TE)",
[MPLS-GMPLS-SECURITY] Fang, L. et al, "Security Framework for RFC 5305, October 2008.
MPLS and GMPLS Networks", draft-fang-mpls-gmpls-security-
framework-01.txt, work in progress.
9. Authors' Address: [RFC5307] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Intermediate
System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 5307, October 2008.
[MPLS-GMPLS-SECURITY] Fang, L. et al, "Security Framework for MPLS
and GMPLS Networks", draft-fang-mpls-gmpls-security-
framework, work in progress.
9. Authors' Addresses
Zafar Ali Zafar Ali
Cisco systems, Inc., Cisco systems, Inc.,
2000 Innovation Drive 2000 Innovation Drive
Kanata, Ontario, K2K 3E8 Kanata, Ontario, K2K 3E8
Canada. Canada.
Email: zali@cisco.com Email: zali@cisco.com
Jean Philippe Vasseur Jean Philippe Vasseur
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
skipping to change at page 11, line 5 skipping to change at page 11, line 23
such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to
rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the
use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR
repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown-07.txt October 07
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention
any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other
proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required
to implement this standard. Please address the information to to implement this standard. Please address the information to
the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
11. Disclaimer of Validity 11. Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided This document and the information contained herein are provided
on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
 End of changes. 37 change blocks. 
102 lines changed or deleted 73 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.35. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/