draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-00.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-01.txt 
draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-00.txt December 2006 Network work group Diego Caviglia
Internet Draft Dino Bramanti
Network Working Group
Internet Draft Diego Caviglia
Intended Status: Informational Dino Bramanti
Ericsson Ericsson
Dan Li Dan Li
Document: Huawei Huawei
draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-00.txt Dave McDysan
Verizon
Intended Status: Informational
Expires: February 2008 August 3, 2007
Requirements for the Conversion Between Permanent Connections and Requirements for the Conversion Between Permanent Connections and
Switched Connections in a Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching Switched Connections in a Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Network (GMPLS) Network
draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-01.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of
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.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html 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
Abstract This Internet-Draft will expire on February 3, 2008.
Abstract
From a Carrier perspective, the possibility of turning a Permanent From a Carrier perspective, the possibility of turning a Permanent
Connection (PC) into a Soft Permanent Connection (SPC) and vice Connection (PC) into a Soft Permanent Connection (SPC) and vice
versa, without actually affecting Data Plane traffic being carried versa, without actually affecting Data Plane traffic being carried
over it, is a valuable option. In other terms, such operation can be over it, is a valuable option. In other terms, such operation can
seen as a way of transferring the ownership and control of an be seen as a way of transferring the ownership and control of an
existing and in-use Data Plane connection between the Management existing and in-use Data Plane connection between the Management
Plane and the Control Plane, leaving its Data Plane state untouched. Plane and the Control Plane, leaving its Data Plane state untouched.
This memo sets out the requirements for such procedures within a This memo sets out the requirements for such procedures within a
Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) network. Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) network.
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 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [1]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC 2119].
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1 Introduction..................................................34 1. Introduction.................................................3
2 Motivation....................................................34 2. Motivation...................................................3
3 Label Switched Path Terminology...............................34 3. Label Switched Path Terminology..............................4
4 LSP within GMPLS Control Plane................................45 4. LSP within GMPLS Control Plane...............................4
4.1 Resource Ownership.........................................45 4.1. Resource Ownership......................................4
4.2 Setting Up a GMPLS Controlled Network......................56 4.2. Setting Up a GMPLS Controlled Network...................5
5 Typical Use Cases.............................................56 5. Typical Use Cases............................................6
5.1 PC to SC/SPC Conversion....................................56 5.1. PC to SC/SPC Conversion.................................6
5.2 SC to PC Conversion........................................67 5.2. SC to PC Conversion.....................................7
6 Requirements..................................................67 6. Requirements.................................................7
6.1 Data Plane LSP Consistency.................................67 6.1. Data Plane LSP Consistency..............................7
6.2 No Disruption of User Traffic..............................67 6.2. No Disruption of User Traffic...........................7
6.3 Transfer from Management Plane to Control Plane............78 6.3. Transfer from Management Plane to Control Plane.........8
6.4 Transfer from Control Plane to Management Plane............78 6.4. Transfer from Control Plane to Management Plane.........8
6.5 Synchronization of state among nodes during conversion.....78 6.5. Synchronization of state among nodes during conversion..8
6.6 Support of Soft Permanent Connections......................78 6.6. Support of Soft Permanent Connections...................8
6.7 Failure of Transfer........................................78 6.7. Failure of Transfer.....................................8
7 Security Considerations.......................................78 7. Security Considerations......................................8
8 IANA Considerations...........................................89 8. IANA Considerations..........................................9
9 References....................................................89 9. References...................................................9
9.1 Normative References.......................................89 9.1. Normative References....................................9
9.2 Informative References.....................................89 9.2. Informative References..................................9
10 Acknowledgments............................................89 10. Acknowledgments.............................................9
11 Authors' Addresses.........................................89 11. Authors' Addresses.........................................10
12. Full Copyright Statement...................................11
13. Intellectual Property Statement............................11
1 Introduction 1. Introduction
In a typical, traditional transport network scenario, Data Plane In a typical, traditional transport network scenario, Data Plane
connections between two endpoints are controlled by means of a connections between two endpoints are controlled by means of a
Network Management System (NMS) operating within the Management Network Management System (NMS) operating within the Management Plane
Plane (MP). The NMS/MP is the owner of such transport connections, (MP). The NMS/MP is the owner of such transport connections, being
being responsible of their setup, teardown, and maintenance. responsible of their setup, teardown, and maintenance. Provisioned
Provisioned connections of this kind, initiated and managed by the connections of this kind, initiated and managed by the Management
Management Plane, are known as Permanent Connections (PCs). Plane, are known as Permanent Connections (PCs) [G.8081].
When the setup, teardown, and maintenance of connections is achieved When the setup, teardown, and maintenance of connections are achieved
by means of a signaling protocol owned by the Control Plane such by means of a signaling protocol owned by the Control Plane such
connections are known as Switched Connections (SCs). connections are known as Switched Connections (SCs) [G.8081].
In many deployments a hybrid connection type will be used. A Soft In many deployments a hybrid connection type will be used. A Soft
Permanent Connection (SPC) is a combination of a permanent Permanent Connection (SPC) is a combination of a permanent connection
connection segment at the source user-to-network side, a permanent segment at the source user-to-network side, a permanent connection
connection segment at the destination user-to-network side, and a segment at the destination user-to-network side, and a switched
switched connection segment within the core network. The permanent connection segment within the core network. The permanent parts of
parts of the SPC are owned by the Management Plane, and the switched the SPC are owned by the Management Plane, and the switched parts are
parts are owned by the Control Plane. owned by the Control Plane [G.8081].
2 Motivation At least some control plane initiated aspects of a connection must be
capable of being queried by the management plane. These aspects
should be independent of how the connection was established.
2. Motivation
The main motivation for this work is the LSP conversion from The main motivation for this work is the LSP conversion from
Management Plane to Control Plane. The objective is to be able to Management Plane PC to Control Plane SC. The objective is to be able
introduce a control plane into an existing network without to introduce a control plane into an existing network without
disrupting user traffic. disrupting user traffic. An example of this is an operator
establishing PCs before the SC technology is mature, or SC
interoperation is achieved between multiple implementations.
Conversion from the Management Plane to Control Plane is proposed as Conversion from the Management Plane to Control Plane is proposed as
a mandatory requirement while the conversion from the Control Plane a mandatory requirement while the conversion from the Control Plane
to Management is seen as a nice to have feature. The requirement for to Management is seen as a nice to have, or desirable, feature. The
LSP conversion from Control Plane to Management Plane should be requirement for LSP conversion from Control Plane to Management Plane
scoped as a back-out procedure. should be scoped as a back-out procedure.
3 Label Switched Path Terminology A significant benefit of GMPLS in networks is discovering and
validating the current state of the network. For example, an operator
could invoke an SC, determine that the automatically discovered path
is good and then "pin" a connection to this specific path using the
SC to PC conversion procedures. This is attractive to network
operators who prefer the static nature of the path for a PC as
compared with the potentially dynamic path of an SC.
3. Label Switched Path Terminology
A Label Switched Path (LSP) has different semantics depending on the A Label Switched Path (LSP) has different semantics depending on the
plane in which it the term is used. plane in which it the term is used.
In the Data Plane, an LSP indicates the Data Plane forwarding path. In the Data Plane, an LSP indicates the Data Plane forwarding path.
It defines the forwarding or switching operations at each network It defines the forwarding or switching operations at each network
entity. It is the sequence of data plane resources (links, labels, entity. It is the sequence of data plane resources (links, labels,
cross-connects) that achieves end-to-end data transport. cross-connects) that achieves end-to-end data transport.
In the Management Plane, an LSP is the management state information In the Management Plane, an LSP is the management state information
(such as the connection attributes and path information)associated (such as the connection attributes and path information)associated
with and necessary for the creation and maintenance of a Data Plane with and necessary for the creation and maintenance of a Data Plane
connection. connection.
In the Control Plane, an LSP is the control plane state information In the Control Plane, an LSP is the control plane state information
(such as Path and Resv state)associated with and necessary for the (such as Path and Resv state)associated with and necessary for the
creation and maintenance of a Data Plane connection. creation and maintenance of a Data Plane connection.
A permanent connection has an LSP presence in the Data Plane and the A Permanent Connection has an LSP presence in the Data Plane and the
Management Plane. A switched connection has an LSP presence in the Management Plane. A Switched Connection has an LSP presence in the
Data Plane and the Control Plane. An SPC has LSP presence in the Data Plane and the Control Plane. An SPC has LSP presence in the Data
Data Plane for its entire length, but has Management Plane presence Plane for its entire length, but has Management Plane presence for
for part of its length and Control Plane presence for part of its part of its length and Control Plane presence for part of its length.
length.
In this document, when we talk about the LSP conversion between In this document, when we talk about the LSP conversion between
Control plane and Management plane, we mainly focus on the Management Plane and Control Plane, we mainly focus on the conversion
conversion of control plane state information and management state of Control Plane state information and Management Plane state
information. information.
4 LSP within GMPLS Control Plane 4. LSP within GMPLS Control Plane
Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS)[2], [3] defines a Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) [RFC 3471], [RFC
powerful Control Plane architecture for transport networks. This 3473] defines a powerful Control Plane architecture for transport
includes both routing and signaling protocols for the creation and networks. This includes both routing and signaling protocols for the
maintenance of Label Switched Paths (LSPs) in networks whose Data creation and maintenance of Label Switched Paths (LSPs) in networks
Plane is based on different technologies such as optical TDM whose Data Plane is based on different technologies such as TDM
transport ad WDM. (SDH/SONET G.709 at ODUk level) transport and WDM (G.709 OCh level).
4.1 Resource Ownership 4.1. Resource Ownership
A resource used by an LSP is said to be 'owned' by the plane that A resource used by an LSP is said to be 'owned' by the plane that was
was used to set up the LSP through that part of the network. Thus, used to set up the LSP through that part of the network. Thus, all
all the resources used by a permanent connection are owned by the the resources used by a Permanent Connection are owned by the
Management Plane, and all the resources used by a switched Management Plane, and all the resources used by a Switched Connection
connection are owned by the Control Plane. The resources used by an are owned by the Control Plane. The resources used by an SPC are
SPC are divided between the Management Plane (for the resources used divided between the Management Plane (for the resources used by the
by the permanent connection segments at the edge of the network) and permanent connection segments at the edge of the network) and the
the Control Plane (for the resources used by the switched segment in Control Plane (for the resources used by the switched segment in the
the middle of the network). middle of the network). Note that the management plane assigns
resources to the control plane.
The division of resources available for ownership by the Management The division of resources available for ownership by the Management
and Control Planes is an architectural issue. A carrier may decide and Control Planes is an architectural issue. A carrier may decide to
to pre-partition the resources at a network entity so that LSPs pre-partition the resources at a network entity so that LSPs under
under Management Plane control use one set of resources and LSPs Management Plane control use one set of resources and LSPs under
under Control Plane control use another set of resources. Other Control Plane control use another set of resources. Other carriers
carriers may choose to make this distinction resource-by-resource as may choose to make this distinction resource-by-resource as LSPs are
LSPs are established. established.
It should be noted, however, that even when a resource is owned by It should be noted, however, that even when a resource is owned by
the Control Plane it will usually be the case that the Management the Control Plane it will usually be the case that the Management
Plane has a controlling interest in the resource. Consider, for Plane has a controlling interest in the resource. Consider e.g. the
example, that in the event of a Control Plane failure, the basic safety requirements that imply that management commands must be
Management Plane needs to be able to de-provision resources. Also available to set laser out of service.
consider the basic safety requirements that imply that management
commands must be available to set laser out of service.
4.2 Setting Up a GMPLS Controlled Network 4.2. Setting Up a GMPLS Controlled Network
The implementation of a new network using a Generalized The implementation of a new network using a Generalized Multiprotocol
Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Control Plane may be Label Switching (GMPLS) Control Plane may be considered as a green
considered as a green field deployment. But in many cases it is field deployment. But in many cases it is desirable to introduce a
desirable to introduce a GMPLS Control Plane into an existing GMPLS Control Plane into an existing transport network that is
transport network that is already populated with permanent already populated with permanent connections under Management Plane
connections under Management Plane control. control.
In a mixed scenario, permanent connections owned by the Management In a mixed scenario, Permanent Connections owned by the Management
Plane and switched connections owned by the Control Plane have to Plane and Switched Connections owned by the Control Plane have to
coexist within the network. coexist within the network.
It is also desirable to transfer the control of connections from the It is also desirable to transfer the control of connections from the
Management Plane to the Control Plane so that connections that were Management Plane to the Control Plane so that connections that were
originally under the control of an NMS are now under the control of originally under the control of an NMS are now under the control of
the GMPLS protocols. In case such connections are in service, such the GMPLS protocols. In case such connections are in service, such
conversion must be performed in a way that does not affect traffic. conversion must be performed in a way that does not affect traffic.
Since attempts to move a LSP under GMPLS control might fail due to a Since attempts to move a LSP under GMPLS control might fail due to a
number of reasons outside the scope of this draft, it is also number of reasons outside the scope of this draft, it is also highly
advisable to have a mechanism to convert the control of an LSP back desirable to have a mechanism to convert the control of an LSP back
to the Management Plane, in fact undoing the whole process. to the Management Plane, in fact undoing the whole process for
reasons summarized in the motivation section.
Note that a permanent connection may be converted to a switched Note that a Permanent Connection may be converted to a Switched
connection or to an SPC, and an SPC may be converted to a switched Connection or to an SPC, and an SPC may be converted to a Switched
connection as well(PC to SC, PC to SPC, and SPC to SC). So the Connection as well (PC to SC, PC to SPC, and SPC to SC). So the
reverse mappings may be also needed (SC to PC, SC to SPC, and SPC to reverse mappings may be also needed (SC to PC, SC to SPC, and SPC to
PC). PC).
5 Typical Use Cases Conversion to/from control/management will occur in many MIBs or
network management data structures where the owner of the hop level
information (e.g., cross-connect, label assignment, label stacking,
etc.) is identified as either a specific control protocol, or manual
(i.e., NMS). When converting, this hop-level owner information needs
to be completed for all hops. If conversion cannot be done for all
hops, then the conversion must be done for no hops and the state of
the hop level information restored to that before the conversion was
attempted, and an error condition reported to the management system.
5.1 PC to SC/SPC Conversion In either case of conversion, the Management Plane shall initiate the
change. When converting from a PC to an SC, the management system
must somehow indicate to each hop that a control protocol is now to
be used, and then configure the data needed by control protocol at
the connection endpoints. When converting from an SC to a PC, the
management plane must change the owner of each hop. Somehow, then the
instance in the control plane must be removed without affecting the
data plane. This may best be done via a make before break operation.
The case where the CP and/or MP fail at one or more nodes during the
conversion procedure must be handled in the solution. If the network
is viewed as the database of record (including data, control and
management plane elements), then a solution that has procedures
similar to those of a two-phase database commit process may be needed
to ensure integrity and support the need to revert to the state prior
to the conversion attempt if there is a CP and/or MP failure during
the attempted conversion.
5. Typical Use Cases
5.1. PC to SC/SPC Conversion
A typical scenario where a PC to SC (or SPC) procedure can be a A typical scenario where a PC to SC (or SPC) procedure can be a
useful option is at the initial stage of Control Plane deployment in useful option is at the initial stage of Control Plane deployment in
an existing network. In such a case all the network connections, an existing network. In such a case all the network connections,
possibly carrying traffic, are already set up as PCs and are owned possibly carrying traffic, are already set up as PCs and are owned by
by the Management Plane. the Management Plane.
Next step in such conversion process presents a similar scenario Next step in such conversion process presents a similar scenario
where the network is partially controlled by the Management Plane where the network is partially controlled by the Management Plane and
and partially controlled by the Control Plane (PCs and SCs/SPCs partially controlled by the Control Plane (PCs and SCs/SPCs coexist).
coexist). In this case a network upgrade by a Control Plane coverage
extension may be required. In this case a network upgrade by a Control Plane coverage extension
may be required.
In both cases the point is that a connection, set up and owned by In both cases the point is that a connection, set up and owned by
the Management Plane, may need to be transferred to Control Plane the Management Plane, may need to be transferred to Control Plane
control. If a connection is carrying traffic, its transfer has to be control. If a connection is carrying traffic, its transfer has to be
done without any disruption to the Data Plane traffic. done without any disruption to the Data Plane traffic.
5.2 SC to PC Conversion 5.2. SC to PC Conversion
The main reason making a SC to PC conversion interesting is to give The main reason making a SC to PC conversion interesting is to give
an operator the chance of undoing somehow the action represented by an operator the chance of undoing somehow the action represented by
the above introduced PC to SC conversion. the above introduced PC to SC conversion.
In other words the SC to PC conversion is a back-out procedure and In other words the SC to PC conversion is a back-out procedure and as
as such is not considered mandatory in this document, still being a such is not specified as mandatory in this document, but is still a
useful functional resource. highly desirable function.
Again it is worth stressing the requirement that such `SPC to PC` Again it is worth stressing the requirement that such 'SPC to PC'
conversion is achieved without any effect on the associated Data conversion is achieved without any effect on the associated Data
Plane state so that the connection continues to be operational and Plane state so that the connection continues to be operational and to
to carry traffic during the transition. carry traffic during the transition.
6 Requirements 6. Requirements
This section sets out the basic requirements for procedures and This section sets out the basic requirements for procedures and
processes that are used to perform the functions this document is processes that are used to perform the functions this document is
about. about.
6.1 Data Plane LSP Consistency 6.1. Data Plane LSP Consistency
The Data Plane LSP, staying in place throughout the whole transfer The Data Plane LSP, staying in place throughout the whole transfer
process, MUST follow the same path through the network and MUST use process, MUST follow the same path through the network and MUST use
the same network resources. the same network resources.
6.2 No Disruption of User Traffic 6.2. No Disruption of User Traffic
The transfer process MUST NOT cause any disruption of user traffic The transfer process MUST NOT cause any disruption of user traffic
flowing over the LSP whose control is being transferred or any other flowing over the LSP whose control is being transferred or any other
LSP in the network. LSP in the network.
6.3 Transfer from Management Plane to Control Plane SC to PC conversion and vice-versa shall occur without generating
management plane alarms toward the end users at neither the UNI
endpoints nor the NMS.
6.3. Transfer from Management Plane to Control Plane
It MUST be possible to transfer the ownership of an LSP from the It MUST be possible to transfer the ownership of an LSP from the
Management Plane to the Control Plane Management Plane to the Control Plane
6.4 Transfer from Control Plane to Management Plane 6.4. Transfer from Control Plane to Management Plane
It SHOULD be possible to transfer the ownership of an LSP from the It SHOULD be possible to transfer the ownership of an LSP from the
Control Plane to the Management Plane. Control Plane to the Management Plane.
6.5 Synchronization of state among nodes during conversion 6.5. Synchronization of state among nodes during conversion
It MUST be assured that the state of the LSP is synchronized among It MUST be assured that the state of the LSP is synchronized among
all nodes traversed by it before proceeding to the conversion. all nodes traversed by it before proceeding to the conversion.
6.6 Support of Soft Permanent Connections 6.6. Support of Soft Permanent Connections
It MUST be possible to segment an LSP such that it is converted to It MUST be possible to segment an LSP such that it is converted to or
or from an SPC. from an SPC.
6.7 Failure of Transfer 6.7. Failure of Transfer
It MUST be possible for a transfer from one plane to the other to It MUST be possible for a transfer from one plane to the other to
fail in a non-destructive way leaving the ownership unchanged and fail in a non-destructive way leaving the ownership unchanged and
without impacting traffic. without impacting traffic.
If during the transfer procedure some issues arise causing an If during the transfer procedure some issues arise causing an
unsuccessful or incomplete, unexpected result it MUST be assured unsuccessful or incomplete, unexpected result it MUST be assured that
that at the end: at the end:
1) Traffic over Data Plane is not affected
2) The LSP status is consistent in all the TNEs involved in the 1. Traffic over Data Plane is not affected
procedure
2. The LSP status is consistent in all the Transport Network Elements
(TNEs) involved in the procedure
Point 2 above assures that, even in case of some failure during the Point 2 above assures that, even in case of some failure during the
transfer, the state of the affected LSP is brought back to the transfer, the state of the affected LSP is brought back to the
initial one and it is fully under control of the owning entity. initial one and it is fully under control of the owning entity.
7 Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
Allowing control of an LSP to be taken away from a plane introduces Allowing control of an LSP to be taken away from a plane introduces
another way in which services may be disrupted by malicious another way in which services may be disrupted by malicious
intervention. intervention.
It is expected that any solution to the requirements in this It is expected that any solution to the requirements in this document
document will utilize the security mechanisms inherent in the will utilize the security mechanisms inherent in the Management Plane
Management Plane and Control Plane protocols, and no new security and Control Plane protocols, and no new security mechanisms are
mechanisms are needed if these tools are correctly used. needed if these tools are correctly used.
If SNMP MIBs are used for configuration, then the management plane
should support at least authentication for PC<>SC configuration
changes as specified in [RFC 3414].
Note also that implementations may enable policy components to help Note also that implementations may enable policy components to help
determine whether individual LSPs may be transferred between planes. determine whether individual LSPs may be transferred between planes.
8 IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
This requirement document makes no requests for IANA action. This requirement document makes no requests for IANA action.
9 References 9. References
9.1 Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement [RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
[G.8081] ITU-T, "Terms and definitions for Automatically Switched
Optical Networks (ASON)," Recommendation G.8081/Y.1353,
[RFC 3414] U. Blumenthal, B. Wijnen, "User-based Security Model(USM)
for version 3 of the Simple Network Management Protocol
(SNMPv3)," RFC 3414, December 2002
9.2 Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[2] L. Berger (Ed.) "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching [RFC 3471] L. Berger (Ed.) "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
(GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, January 2003 Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC
3471, January 2003
[3] L. Berger (Ed.) "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching [RFC 3473] L. Berger (Ed.) "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
(GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation
(RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003 Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC
3473, January 2003
10 Acknowledgments 10. Acknowledgments
We whish to thank the following people (listed randomly) Adrian We whish to thank the following people (listed randomly) Adrian
Farrel for his editorial assistance to prepare this draft for Farrel for his editorial assistance to prepare this draft for
publication, Dean Cheng and Julien Meuric, Dimitri Papadimitriou, publication, Dean Cheng and Julien Meuric, Dimitri Papadimitriou,
Deborah Brungard, Igor Bryskin, Lou Berger, Don Fedyk, John Drake Deborah Brungard, Igor Bryskin, Lou Berger, Don Fedyk, John Drake and
and Vijay Pandian for their suggestions and comments on the CCAMP Vijay Pandian for their suggestions and comments on the CCAMP list.
list.
11 Authors' Addresses 11. Authors' Addresses
Diego Caviglia Diego Caviglia
Ericsson Ericsson
Via A. Negrone 1/A Via A. Negrone 1/A
Genova-Sestri Ponente, Italy Genova-Sestri Ponente, Italy
Phone: +390106003738 Phone: +390106003738
Email: diego.caviglia@marconi.com Email: diego.caviglia@marconi.com
Dino Bramanti Dino Bramanti
Ericsson Ericsson
Via Moruzzi 1 Via Moruzzi 1
C/O Area Ricerca CNR C/O Area Ricerca CNR
Pisa, Italy Pisa, Italy
Email: dino.bramanti@marconi.com Email: dino.bramanti@marconi.com
Nicola Ciulli Nicola Ciulli
NextWorks NextWorks
Corso Italia 116 Corso Italia 116
56125 Pisa, Italy 56125 Pisa, Italy
Email: n.ciulli@nextworks.it Email: n.ciulli@nextworks.it
Dan Li Dan Li
Huawei Technologies Co., LTD. Huawei Technologies Co., LTD.
Huawei Base, Bantian, Longgang, Huawei Base, Bantian, Longgang,
Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China Shenzhen 518129 P.R.Chin
danli@huawei.com
Tel: +86-755-28972910 Phone: +86-755-28972910
Email: danli@huawei.com
Han Li Han Li
China Mobile Communications Co. China Mobile Communications Co.
53A Xibianmennei Ave. Xuanwu District 53A Xibianmennei Ave. Xuanwu District
Beijing 100053 P.R. China Beijing 100053 P.R. China
lihan@chinamobile.com
Tel: +86-10-66006688 ext. 3092
Intellectual Property Phone: +86-10-66006688 ext.3092
Email: lihan@chinamobile.com
Dave McDysan
Verizon
Ashburn, VA, USA
Email: dave.mcdysan@verizon.com
12. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on
an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE
IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL
WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY
WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE
ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
13. Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed
to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described
in this document or the extent to which any license under such in this document or the extent to which any license under such
rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that
it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights.
Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC
documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 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 use attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use
of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository
at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ipr@ietf.org. ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2006).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
retain all their rights. other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts
IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in
WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY progress".
WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE
ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
 End of changes. 73 change blocks. 
182 lines changed or deleted 275 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.34. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/