draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt   rfc5493.txt 
CCAMP Working Group D. Caviglia Network Working Group D. Caviglia
Internet-Draft D. Bramanti Request for Comments: 5493 D. Bramanti
Intended status: Informational Ericsson Category: Informational Ericsson
Expires: March 19, 2009 D. Li D. Li
Huawei Technologies Co., LTD. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
D. McDysan D. McDysan
Verizon Verizon
September 15, 2008 Requirements for the Conversion between
Permanent Connections and Switched Connections in a
Requirements for the Conversion Between Permanent Connections and Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Network
Switched Connections in a Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Network
draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any Status of This Memo
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 becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- memo is unlimited.
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Copyright Notice
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. document authors. All rights reserved.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 15, 2009. This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Abstract 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 be
seen as a way of transferring the ownership and control of an 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
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction ....................................................3
2. Label Switched Path Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document ..........................3
3. LSP within GMPLS Control Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Label Switched Path Terminology .................................3
3.1. Resource Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. LSP within GMPLS Control Plane ..................................4
3.2. Setting Up a GMPLS Controlled Network . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. Resource Ownership .........................................4
4. Typical Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2. Setting Up a GMPLS-Controlled Network ......................5
4.1. PC to SC/SPC Conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Typical Use Cases ...............................................6
4.2. SC to PC Conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1. PC-to-SC/SPC Conversion ....................................6
5. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.2. SC-to-PC Conversion ........................................6
5.1. Data Plane LSP Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Requirements ....................................................7
5.2. No Disruption of User Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1. Data Plane LSP Consistency .................................7
5.3. Transfer from Management Plane to Control Plane . . . . . 7 5.2. No Disruption of User Traffic ..............................7
5.4. Transfer from Control Plane to Management Plane . . . . . 7 5.3. Transfer from Management Plane to Control Plane ............7
5.5. Synchronization of State Among Nodes During Conversion . . 7 5.4. Transfer from Control Plane to Management Plane ............7
5.6. Support of Soft Permanent Connections . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.5. Synchronization of State among Nodes during Conversion .....7
5.7. Failure of transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.6. Support of Soft Permanent Connections ......................8
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.7. Failure of Transfer ........................................8
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Security Considerations .........................................8
8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. Contributors ....................................................9
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8. Acknowledgments .................................................9
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9. References ......................................................9
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9.1. Normative References .......................................9
10.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9.2. Informational References ..................................10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 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 end-points are controlled by means of a connections between two end-points are controlled by means of a
Network Management System (NMS) operating within the Management Plane Network Management System (NMS) operating within the management plane
(MP). The NMS/MP is the owner of such transport connections, being (MP). The NMS/MP is the owner of such transport connections, being
responsible of their setup, teardown, and maintenance. Provisioned responsible of their setup, teardown, and maintenance. Provisioned
connections of this type, initiated and managed by the Management connections of this type, initiated and managed by the management
Plane, are known as Permanent Connections (PCs) [G.8081]. plane, are known as permanent connections (PCs) [G.8081].
When the setup, teardown, and maintenance of connections are 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 (CP),
connections are known as Switched Connections (SCs) [G.8081]. such 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 connection permanent connection (SPC) is a combination of a permanent connection
segment at the source user-to-network side, a permanent connection segment at the source-user-to-network side, a permanent connection
segment at the destination user-to-network side, and a switched segment at the destination-user-to-network side, and a switched
connection segment within the core network. The permanent parts of connection segment within the core network. The permanent parts of
the SPC are owned by the Management Plane, and the switched parts are the SPC are owned by the management plane, and the switched parts are
owned by the Control Plane [G.8081]. owned by the control plane [G.8081].
Note, some aspects of a control plane initiated connection must be Note, some aspects of a control-plane-initiated connection must be
capable of being queried/controlled by the Management Plane. These capable of being queried/controlled by the management plane. These
aspects should be independent of how the connection was established. aspects should be independent of how the connection was established.
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document
Although this requirements document is an informational document, not
a protocol specification, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT",
"REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT",
"RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be
interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119] for clarity of
requirement specification.
2. Label Switched Path Terminology 2. 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 the term is used. plane in which 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 plane state
(such as the connection attributes and path information) associated information (such as the connection attributes and path information)
with and necessary for the creation and maintenance of a Data Plane associated with and necessary for the creation and maintenance of a
connection. data plane 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 RSVP-TE [RFC3473] Path and Resv state) associated with and (such as the RSVP-TE [RFC3473] Path and Resv state) associated with
necessary for the creation and maintenance of a Data Plane and necessary for the creation and maintenance of a data plane
connection. 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 an LSP presence in the
Data Plane for its entire length, but has Management Plane presence data plane for its entire length, but has a management plane presence
for part of its length and Control Plane presence for part of its for part of its length and a control plane presence for part of its
length. length.
In this document, when we discuss the LSP conversion between In this document, when we discuss the LSP conversion between
Management Plane and Control Plane, we mainly focus on the conversion management plane and control plane, we mainly focus on the conversion
of Control Plane state information and Management Plane state of control plane state information and management plane state
information. information.
3. LSP within GMPLS Control Plane 3. LSP within GMPLS Control Plane
Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) ([RFC3471], GMPLS ([RFC3471], [RFC3473], and [RFC3945]) defines a control plane
[RFC3473], and [RFC3945]) defines a Control Plane architecture for architecture for transport networks. This includes both routing and
transport networks. This includes both routing and signaling signaling protocols for the creation and maintenance of LSPs in
protocols for the creation and maintenance of Label Switched Paths networks whose data plane is based on different technologies, such as
(LSPs) in networks whose Data Plane is based on different Time Division Multiplexing (SDH/SONET, G.709 at ODUk level) and
technologies such as TDM (SDH/SONET, G.709 at ODUk level) transport Wavelength Division Multiplexing (G.709 at OCh level).
and WDM (G.709 OCh level).
3.1. Resource Ownership 3.1. Resource Ownership
A resource used by an LSP is said to be 'owned' by the plane that was A resource used by an LSP is said to be 'owned' by the plane that was
used to set up the LSP through that part of the network. Thus,all used to set up the LSP through that part of the network. Thus,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 Connection management plane, and all the resources used by a switched connection
are owned by the Control Plane. The resources used by an SPC are are owned by the control plane. The resources used by an SPC are
divided between the Management Plane (for the resources used by the divided between the management plane (for the resources used by the
permanent connection segments at the edge of the network) and the permanent connection segments at the edge of the network) and the
Control Plane (for the resources used by the switched segments in the control plane (for the resources used by the switched connection
middle of the network). segments in the middle of the network).
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 pre-partition the resources at a network entity so that LSPs under to pre-partition the resources at a network entity so that LSPs under
Management Plane control use one set of resources and LSPs under management plane control use one set of resources and LSPs under
Control Plane control use another set of resources. Other carriers control plane control use another set of resources. Other carriers
may choose to make this distinction resource-by-resource as LSPs are may choose to make this distinction resource-by-resource as 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. For example, the plane has a controlling interest in the resource. For example,
basic safety requirements that management commands must be able to consider the basic safety requirements that management commands must
set a laser out of service. be able to put a laser out of service.
3.2. Setting Up a GMPLS Controlled Network 3.2. Setting Up a GMPLS-Controlled Network
The implementation of a new network using a Generalized Multiprotocol The implementation of a new network using a Generalized Multiprotocol
Label Switching (GMPLS) Control Plane may be considered as a green Label Switching (GMPLS) control plane may be considered as a green
field deployment. But in many cases it is desirable to introduce a field deployment. But in many cases, it is desirable to introduce a
GMPLS Control Plane into an existing transport network that is GMPLS control plane into an existing transport network that is
already populated with permanent connections under Management Plane already populated with permanent 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 an LSP under GMPLS control might fail due to a
number of reasons outside the scope of this draft, it is also highly number of reasons outside the scope of this document, it is also
desirable to have a mechanism to convert the control of an LSP back highly desirable to have a mechanism to convert the control of an LSP
to the Management Plane. back to the management plane.
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 also be needed (SC to PC, SPC to PC, and SC to
PC). SPC).
Conversion to/from control/management will occur in MIBs or Conversion to/from control/management will occur in MIBs or in
information (e.g., cross-connect, label assignment, label stacking, information stored on the device (e.g., cross-connect, label
etc.) is identified as either a specific control protocol, or manual assignment, label stacking, etc.) and is identified as either
(i.e., NMS). When converting, this hop-level owner information needs initiated by a specific control protocol or by manual operation
to be completed for all hops. If conversion cannot be done for all (i.e., via an NMS). When converting, this hop-level owner
hops, then the conversion must be done for no hops and the state of information needs to be completed for all hops. If conversion cannot
the hop level information restored to that before the conversion was be done for all hops, then the conversion must be done for no hops,
attempted, and an error condition reported to the management system. the state of the hop-level information must be restored to that
before the conversion was attempted, and an error condition must be
reported to the management system.
In either case of conversion, the Management Plane shall initiate the In either case of conversion, the management plane shall initiate the
change. When converting from a PC to an SC, the management system change. When converting from a PC to an SC, the management system
must indicate to each hop that a control protocol is now to be used, must indicate to each hop that a control protocol is now to be used,
and then configure the data needed by the control protocol at the and then configure the data needed by the control protocol at the
connection endpoints. When converting from an SC to a PC, the connection endpoints. When converting from an SC to a PC, the
Management Plane must change the owner of each hop. Then the management plane must change the owner of each hop. Then the
instance in the Control Plane must be removed without affecting the instance in the control plane must be removed without affecting the
Data Plane. data plane.
The case where the CP and/or MP fail at one or more nodes during the 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 conversion procedure must be handled in the solution. If the network
is viewed as the database of record (including data, control and is viewed as the database of record (including data, control, and
Management Plane elements), then a solution that has procedures management plane elements), then a solution that has procedures
similar to those of a two-phase database commit process may be needed 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 ensure integrity and to support the need to revert to the state
to the conversion attempt if there is a CP and/or MP failure during prior to the conversion attempt if there is a CP and/or MP failure
the attempted conversion. during the attempted conversion.
4. Typical Use Cases 4. Typical Use Cases
4.1. PC to SC/SPC Conversion 4.1. 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 by possibly carrying traffic, are already set up as PCs and are owned by
the Management Plane. the management plane.
At a latter stage, when the network is partially controlled by the At a latter stage, when the network is partially controlled by the
Management Plane and partially controlled by the Control Plane (PCs management plane and partially controlled by the control plane (PCs
and SCs/SPCs coexist) and it is desired to extend the control plane, and SCs/SPCs coexist) and it is desired to extend the control plane,
a PC to SC procedure can be used to transfer a PC or SPC to a SC. a PC-to-SC procedure can be used to transfer a PC or SPC to a SC.
In both cases, a connection, set up and owned by the Management In both cases, a connection, set up and owned by the management
Plane, needs to be transferred to Control Plane control. If a plane, needs to be transferred to control plane control. If a
connection is carrying traffic, its control transfer has to be done connection is carrying traffic, its control transfer has to be done
without any disruption to the Data Plane traffic. without any disruption to the data plane traffic.
4.2. SC to PC Conversion 4.2. SC-to-PC Conversion
The main need for a SC to PC conversion is to give an operator the The main need for an SC-to-PC conversion is to give an operator the
capability of undoing the action of the above introduced PC to SC capability of undoing the action of the above introduced PC-to-SC
conversion. 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 such is not specified as mandatory in this document, but it is as such is not specified as mandatory in this document, but it is
still a highly desirable function. still a highly desirable function.
Again it is worth stressing the requirement that such 'SPC to PC' Again, it is worth stressing the requirement that such an SPC-to-PC
conversion needs to be achieved without any effect on the associated conversion needs to be achieved without any effect on the associated
Data Plane state so that the connection continues to be operational data plane state so that the connection continues to be operational
and to carry traffic during the transition. and to carry traffic during the transition.
5. Requirements 5. 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 of this document. processes that are used to perform the functions of this document.
Notation from [RFC2119] is used to clarify the level of each Notation from [RFC2119] is used to clarify the level of each
requirement. requirement.
5.1. Data Plane LSP Consistency 5.1. Data Plane LSP Consistency
The Data Plane LSP MUST stay in place throughout the whole control The data plane LSP MUST stay in place throughout the whole control
transfer process. It MUST follow the same path through the network transfer process. It MUST follow the same path through the network
and MUST use the same network resources. and MUST use the same network resources.
5.2. No Disruption of User Traffic 5.2. 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 over any
LSP in the network. other LSP in the network.
SC to PC conversion and vice-versa SHALL occur without generating SC-to-PC conversion and vice-versa SHALL occur without generating
alarms towards the end users or the NMS. alarms towards the end users or the NMS.
5.3. Transfer from Management Plane to Control Plane 5.3. 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.
5.4. Transfer from Control Plane to Management Plane 5.4. 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.
5.5. Synchronization of State Among Nodes During Conversion 5.5. 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 the conversion is considered all nodes traversed by it before the conversion is considered
complete. complete.
5.6. Support of Soft Permanent Connections 5.6. Support of Soft Permanent Connections
It MUST be possible to segment an LSP such that it can be converted It MUST be possible to segment an LSP such that it can be converted
to or from an SPC. to or from an SPC.
5.7. Failure of transfer 5.7. 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 issues arise causing an unsuccessful If during the transfer procedure issues arise causing an unsuccessful
or unexpected result, it MUST be assured: or unexpected result, it MUST be assured that:
1. Traffic over Data Plane is not affected 1. Traffic over the data plane is not affected.
2. The LSP status is consistent in all the network nodes involved in 2. The LSP status is consistent in all the network nodes involved in
the procedure 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 is fully under the control of the owning entity.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
Allowing control of an LSP to be taken away from a plane introduces a Allowing control of an LSP to be taken away from a plane introduces a
possible way in which services may be disrupted by malicious possible way in which services may be disrupted by malicious
intervention. intervention.
A solution to the requirements in this document will utilize the A solution to the requirements in this document will utilize the
security mechanisms supported by the Management Plane and GMPLS security mechanisms supported by the management plane and GMPLS
Control Plane protocols, and no new security requirements over the control plane protocols, and no new security requirements over the
general requirements described in [RFC3945] are introduced. It is general requirements described in [RFC3945] are introduced. It is
expected that solution documents will include an analysis of the expected that solution documents will include an analysis of the
security issues introduced by any new protocol extensions. security issues introduced by any new protocol extensions.
If SNMP MIBs are used for configuration, then the Management Plane The management plane interactions MUST be supported through protocols
should support authentication for PC-SC configuration changes as that can offer adequate security mechanisms to secure the
specified in [RFC3414]. configuration and protect the operation of the devices that are
managed. These mechanisms MUST include at least cryptographic
security and the ability to ensure that the entity giving access to
configuration parameters is properly configured to give access only
to those principals (users) that have legitimate rights to
read/create/change/delete the parameters. IETF standard management
protocols (Netconf [RFC4741] and SNMPv3 [RFC3410]) offer these
mechanisms.
Note also that implementations may support policy components to Note also that implementations may support policy components to
determine whether individual LSPs may be transferred between planes. determine whether individual LSPs may be transferred between planes.
7. IANA Considerations 7. Contributors
This requirements document makes no requests for IANA action.
8. Contributors
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
Han Li Han Li
China Mobile Communications Co. China Mobile Communications Co.
53 A Xibianmennei Ave. Xuanwu District 53 A Xibianmennei Ave. Xuanwu District
Deijing 100053 P.R. China Deijing 100053 P.R. China
Phone: 10-66006688 ext.3092 Phone: 10-66006688 ext.3092
Email: lihan@chinamobile.com EMail: lihan@chinamobile.com
Daniele Ceccarelli Daniele Ceccarelli
Ericsson Ericsson
Via A. Negrone 1/A Via A. Negrone 1/A
Genova-Sestri Ponente, Italy Genova-Sestri Ponente, Italy
Phone: +390106002515 Phone: +390106002515
Email: daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com EMail: daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com
9. Acknowledgements 8. Acknowledgments
We wish to thank the following people (listed randomly): Adrian We wish 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 document for
publication, Dean Cheng, Julien Meuric, Dimitri Papadimitriou, publication; Dean Cheng, Julien Meuric, Dimitri Papadimitriou,
Deborah Brungard, Igor Bryskin, Lou Berger, Don Fedyk, John Drake and Deborah Brungard, Igor Bryskin, Lou Berger, Don Fedyk, John Drake,
Vijay Pandian for their suggestions and comments on the CCAMP list. and Vijay Pandian for their suggestions and comments on the CCAMP
list.
10. References 9. References
10.1. Normative References 9.1. 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.
[RFC3414] Blumenthal, U. and B. Wijnen, "User-based Security Model [RFC3410] Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D., and B.
(USM) for version 3 of the Simple Network Management Stewart,"Introduction and Applicability Statements for
Protocol (SNMPv3)", STD 62, RFC 3414, December 2002. Internet-Standard Management Framework", RFC 3410,
December 2002.
10.2. Informational References 9.2. Informative References
[RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching [RFC3471] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
(GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC
January 2003. 3471, January 2003.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching [RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
(GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC
3473, January 2003.
[RFC3945] Mannie, E., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching [RFC3945] Mannie, E., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
(GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004. Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004.
[RFC4741] Enns, R., Ed., "NETCONF Configuration Protocol", RFC 4741,
December 2006.
[G.8081] International Telecommunications Union, "Terms and [G.8081] International Telecommunications Union, "Terms and
definitions for Automatically Switched Optical Networks definitions for Automatically Switched Optical Networks
(ASON)", Recommendation G.8081/Y.1353, June 2004. (ASON)", Recommendation G.8081/Y.1353, June 2004.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Diego Caviglia Diego Caviglia
Ericsson Ericsson
Via A. Negrone 1/A Via A. Negrone 1/A
Genova - Sestri Ponente Genova - Sestri Ponente
Italy Italy
Email: diego.caviglia@ericsson.com EMail: diego.caviglia@ericsson.com
Dino Bramanti Dino Bramanti
Ericsson Ericsson
Via Moruzzi 1 C/O Area Ricerca CNR Via Moruzzi 1 C/O Area Ricerca CNR
Pisa Pisa
Italy Italy
Email: dino.bramanti@ericsson.com EMail: dino.bramanti@ericsson.com
Dan Li Dan Li
Huawei Technologies Co., LTD. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
Shenzhen 518129 Shenzhen 518129
Huawei Base, Bantian, Longgang Huawei Base, Bantian, Longgang
China China
Email: dan.li@huawei.com EMail: danli@huawei.com
Dave McDysan Dave McDysan
Verizon Verizon
Ashburn, VA Ashburn, VA
USA USA
Email: dave.mcdysan@verizon.com EMail: dave.mcdysan@verizon.com
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
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.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
 End of changes. 88 change blocks. 
215 lines changed or deleted 227 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/