draft-ietf-mpls-crldp-unnum-10.txt   rfc3480.txt 
Network Working Group Kireeti Kompella Network Working Group K. Kompella
Internet Draft Juniper Networks Request for Comments: 3480 Y. Rekhter
Expiration Date: June 2003 Yakov Rekhter Category: Standards Track Juniper Networks
Juniper Networks A. Kullberg
Alan Kullberg NetPlane Systems
NetPlane Systems February 2003
Signalling Unnumbered Links in CR-LDP Signalling Unnumbered Links in CR-LDP
(Constraint-Routing Label Distribution Protocol)
draft-ietf-mpls-crldp-unnum-10.txt Status of this Memo
1. Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
material or to cite them other than as ``work in progress.'' Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at Copyright Notice
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
2. Abstract Abstract
Current signalling used by Multi-Protocol Label Switching Traffic Current signalling used by Multi-Protocol Label Switching Traffic
Engineering (MPLS TE) doesn't provide support for unnumbered links. Engineering (MPLS TE) does not provide support for unnumbered links.
This document defines procedures and extensions to Constraint-Routing This document defines procedures and extensions to Constraint-Routing
Label Distribution Protocol (CR-LDP), one of the MPLS TE signalling Label Distribution Protocol (CR-LDP), one of the MPLS TE signalling
protocols, that are needed in order to support unnumbered links. protocols that are needed in order to support unnumbered links.
3. Specification of Requirements Specification of Requirements
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
[RFC2119].
4. Overview 1. Overview
Supporting MPLS TE over unnumbered links (i.e., links that do not Supporting MPLS TE over unnumbered links (i.e., links that do not
have IP addresses) involves two components: (a) the ability to carry have IP addresses) involves two components: (a) the ability to carry
(TE) information about unnumbered links in IGP TE extensions (ISIS or (TE) information about unnumbered links in IGP TE extensions (ISIS or
OSPF), and (b) the ability to specify unnumbered links in MPLS TE OSPF), and (b) the ability to specify unnumbered links in MPLS TE
signalling. The former is covered in [GMPLS-ISIS, GMPLS-OSPF]. The signalling. The former is covered in [GMPLS-ISIS, GMPLS-OSPF]. The
focus of this document is on the latter. focus of this document is on the latter.
Current signalling used by MPLS TE doesn't provide support for Current signalling used by MPLS TE does not provide support for
unnumbered links because the current signalling doesn't provide a way unnumbered links because the current signalling does not provide a
to indicate an unnumbered link in its Explicit Route Objects. This way to indicate an unnumbered link in its Explicit Route Objects.
document proposes simple procedures and extensions that allow CR-LDP This document proposes simple procedures and extensions that allow
signalling [CR-LDP] to be used with unnumbered links. CR-LDP signalling [CR-LDP] to be used with unnumbered links.
5. Link Identifiers 2. Link Identifiers
An unnumbered link has to be a point-to-point link. An LSR at each An unnumbered link has to be a point-to-point link. An LSR at each
end of an unnumbered link assigns an identifier to that link. This end of an unnumbered link assigns an identifier to that link. This
identifier is a non-zero 32-bit number that is unique within the identifier is a non-zero 32-bit number that is unique within the
scope of the LSR that assigns it. If one is using OSPF or ISIS as the scope of the LSR that assigns it. If one is using OSPF or ISIS as
IGP in support of traffic engineering, then the IS-IS and/or OSPF and the IGP in support of traffic engineering, then the IS-IS and/or OSPF
CR-LDP modules on an LSR must agree on the identifiers. and CR-LDP modules on an LSR must agree on the identifiers.
There is no a priori relationship between the identifiers assigned to There is no a priori relationship between the identifiers assigned to
a link by the LSRs at each end of that link. a link by the LSRs at each end of that link.
LSRs at the two end points of an unnumbered link exchange with each LSRs at the two end points of an unnumbered link exchange with each
other the identifiers they assign to the link. Exchanging the other the identifiers they assign to the link. Exchanging the
identifiers may be accomplished by configuration, by means of a identifiers may be accomplished by configuration, by means of a
protocol such as LMP ([LMP]), by means of CR-LDP (especially in the protocol such as LMP ([LMP]), by means of CR-LDP (especially in the
case where a link is a Forwarding Adjacency, see below), or by means case where a link is a Forwarding Adjacency, see below), or by means
of IS-IS or OSPF extensions ([ISIS-GMPLS], [OSPF-GMPLS]). of IS-IS or OSPF extensions ([ISIS-GMPLS], [OSPF-GMPLS]).
Consider an (unnumbered) link between LSRs A and B. LSR A chooses an Consider an (unnumbered) link between LSRs A and B. LSR A chooses an
idenfitier for that link. So is LSR B. From A's perspective we refer identifier for that link. So does LSR B. From A's perspective, we
to the identifier that A assigned to the link as the "link local refer to the identifier that A assigned to the link as the "link
identifier" (or just "local identifier"), and to the identifier that local identifier" (or just "local identifier"), and to the identifier
B assigned to the link as the "link remote identifier" (or just that B assigned to the link as the "link remote identifier" (or just
"remote identifier"). Likewise, from B's perspective the identifier "remote identifier"). Likewise, from B's perspective, the identifier
that B assigned to the link is the local identifier, and the that B assigned to the link is the local identifier, and the
identifier that A assigned to the link is the remote identifier. identifier that A assigned to the link is the remote identifier.
In the context of this document the term "Router ID" means a stable In the context of this document, the term "Router ID" means a stable
IP address of an LSR that is always reachable if there is any IP address of an LSR that is always reachable if there is any
connectivity to the LSR. This is typically implemented as a "loopback connectivity to the LSR. This is typically implemented as a
address"; the key attribute is that the address does not become "loopback address"; the key attribute is that the address does not
unusable if an interface on the LSR is down. In some case this value become unusable if an interface on the LSR is down. In some cases,
will need to be configured. If one is using OSPF or ISIS as the IGP this value will need to be configured. If one is using OSPF or ISIS
in support of traffic engineering, then it is RECOMMENDED to set the as the IGP in support of traffic engineering, then it is RECOMMENDED
Router ID to the "Router Address" as defined in [OSPF-TE], or for the Router ID to be set to the "Router Address" as defined in
"Traffic Engineering Router ID" as defined in [ISIS-TE]. [OSPF-TE], or "Traffic Engineering Router ID" as defined in [ISIS-
TE].
This section is equally applicable to the case of unnumbered This section is equally applicable to the case of unnumbered
component links (see [LINK-BUNDLE]). component links (see [LINK-BUNDLE]).
6. Unnumbered Forwarding Adjacencies 3. Unnumbered Forwarding Adjacencies
If an LSR that originates an LSP advertises this LSP as an unnumbered If an LSR that originates an LSP advertises this LSP as an unnumbered
Forwarding Adjacency in IS-IS or OSPF (see [LSP-HIER]), or the LSR Forwarding Adjacency in IS-IS or OSPF (see [LSP-HIER]), or the LSR
uses the Forwarding Adjacency formed by this LSP as an unnumbered uses the Forwarding Adjacency formed by this LSP as an unnumbered
component link of a bundled link (see [LINK-BUNDLE]), the LSR MUST component link of a bundled link (see [LINK-BUNDLE]), the LSR MUST
allocate an identifier to that Forwarding Adjacency (just like for allocate an identifier to that Forwarding Adjacency (just like for
any other unnumbered link). Moreover, the REQUEST message used for any other unnumbered link). Moreover, the REQUEST message used for
establishing the LSP that forms the Forwarding Adjacency MUST contain establishing the LSP that forms the Forwarding Adjacency MUST contain
an LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID TLV (described below), with the LSR's an LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID TLV (described below), with the LSR's
Router ID set to the head end's Router ID, and the Interface ID set Router ID set to the head end's Router ID, and the Interface ID set
to the identifier that the LSR allocated to the Forwarding Adjacency. to the identifier that the LSR allocated to the Forwarding Adjacency.
If the REQUEST message contains the LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID TLV, then If the REQUEST message contains the LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID TLV, then
the tail-end LSR MUST allocate an identifier to that Forwarding the tail-end LSR MUST allocate an identifier to that Forwarding
Adjacency (just like for any other unnumbered link). Furthermore, Adjacency (just like for any other unnumbered link). Furthermore,
the MAPPING message for the LSP MUST contain an the MAPPING message for the LSP MUST contain an
LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID TLV, with the LSR's Router ID set to the LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID TLV, with the LSR's Router ID set to the
tail-end's Router ID, and the Interface ID set to the identifier tail-end's Router ID, and the Interface ID set to the identifier
allocated by the tail-end LSR. allocated by the tail-end LSR.
For the purpose of processing the Explicit Route TLV and the For the purpose of processing the Explicit Route TLV and the
Interface ID TLV, an unnumbered Forwarding Adjacency is treated as an Interface ID TLV, an unnumbered Forwarding Adjacency is treated as an
unnumbered (TE) link or an unnumbered component link as follows. The unnumbered (TE) link or an unnumbered component link as follows. The
LSR that originates the Adjacency sets the link local identifier for LSR that originates the Adjacency sets the link local identifier for
that link to the value that the LSR allocates to that Forwarding that link to the value that the LSR allocates to that Forwarding
Adjacency, and the link remote identifier to the value carried in the Adjacency, and the link remote identifier to the value carried in the
Interface ID field of the Reverse Interface ID TLV (for the Interface ID field of the Reverse Interface ID TLV (for the
definition of Reverse Interface ID TLV see below). The LSR that is a definition of Reverse Interface ID TLV see below). The LSR that is a
tail-end of that Forwarding Adjacency sets the link local identifier tail-end of that Forwarding Adjacency sets the link local identifier
for that link to the value that the LSR allocates to that Forwarding for that link to the value that the LSR allocates to that Forwarding
Adjacency, and the link remote identifier to the value carried in the Adjacency, and the link remote identifier to the value carried in the
Interface ID field of the Forward Interface ID TLV (for the Interface ID field of the Forward Interface ID TLV (for the
definition of Forward Interface ID see below). definition of Forward Interface ID see below).
6.1. LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID TLV 3.1. LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID TLV
The LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE ID TLV has Type to be assigned by IANA and The LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE ID TLV has Type 0x0836 and length 8. The
length 8. The format is given below. format is given below.
Figure 1: LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID TLV Figure 1: LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID TLV
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0|0| Type | Length | |0|0| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LSR's Router ID | | LSR's Router ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface ID (32 bits) | | Interface ID (32 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
This TLV can optionally appear in either a REQUEST message or a This TLV can optionally appear in either a REQUEST message or a
MAPPING message. In the former case, we call it the "Forward MAPPING message. In the former case, we call it the "Forward
Interface ID" for that LSP; in the latter case, we call it the Interface ID" for that LSP; in the latter case, we call it the
"Reverse Interface ID" for the LSP. "Reverse Interface ID" for the LSP.
7. Signalling Unnumbered Links in Explicit Route TLV 4. Signalling Unnumbered Links in Explicit Route TLV
A new Type of ER-Hop TLV of the Explicit Route TLV is used to specify A new Type of ER-Hop TLV of the Explicit Route TLV is used to specify
unnumbered links. This Type is called Unnumbered Interface ID, and unnumbered links. This Type is called Unnumbered Interface ID, and
has the following format: has the following format:
The Type is assigned by IANA, and the Length is 12. The L bit is set The Type is 0x0837, and the Length is 12. The L bit is set to
to indicate a loose hop, and cleared to indicate a strict hop. indicate a loose hop, and cleared to indicate a strict hop.
The Interface ID is the identifier assigned to the link by the LSR The Interface ID is the identifier assigned to the link by the LSR
specified by the router ID. specified by the router ID.
Figure 2: Unnumbered Interface ID Figure 2: Unnumbered Interface ID
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0|0| Type | Length = 12 | |0|0| Type | Length = 12 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Reserved | |L| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Router ID | | Router ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface ID (32 bits) | | Interface ID (32 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
7.1. Processing the IF_ID TLV 4.1. Processing the IF_ID TLV
When an LSR receives a REQUEST message containing the IF_ID TLV (see When an LSR receives a REQUEST message containing the IF_ID
[GMPLS-CRLDP]) with the IF_INDEX TLV, the LSR processes this TLV as (Interface ID) TLV (see [GMPLS-CRLDP]) with the IF_INDEX TLV, the LSR
follows. The LSR must have information about the identifiers assigned processes this TLV as follows. The LSR must have information about
by its neighbors to the unnumbered links between the neighbors and the identifiers assigned by its neighbors to the unnumbered links
the LSR. The LSR uses this information to find a link with tuple between the neighbors and the LSR. The LSR uses this information to
<Router ID, local identifier> matching the tuple <IP Address, find a link with tuple <Router ID, local identifier> matching the
Interface ID> carried in the IF_INDEX TLV. If the matching tuple is tuple <IP Address, Interface ID> carried in the IF_INDEX TLV. If the
found, the match identifies the link for which the LSR has to perform matching tuple is found, the match identifies the link for which the
label allocation. LSR has to perform label allocation.
Otherwise, the LSR SHOULD return an error. Otherwise, the LSR SHOULD return an error.
7.2. Processing the Unnumbered Interface ID ER-Hop TLV 4.2. Processing the Unnumbered Interface ID ER-Hop TLV
The Unnumbered Interface ID ER-Hop is defined to be a part of a The Unnumbered Interface ID ER-Hop is defined to be a part of a
particular abstract node if that node has the Router ID that is equal particular abstract node if that node has the Router ID that is equal
to the Router ID field in the Unnumbered Interface ID ER-Hop, and if to the Router ID field in the Unnumbered Interface ID ER-Hop, and if
the node has an (unnumbered) link or an (unnumbered) Forwarding the node has an (unnumbered) link or an (unnumbered) Forwarding
Adjacency whose local identifier (from that node's point of view) is Adjacency whose local identifier (from that node's point of view) is
equal to the value carried in the Interface ID field of the equal to the value carried in the Interface ID field of the
Unnumbered Interface ID ER-Hop. Unnumbered Interface ID ER-Hop.
With this in mind, the Explicit Route TLV processing in the presence With this in mind, the Explicit Route TLV processing in the presence
of the Unnumbered Interface ID ER-Hop follows the rules specified in of the Unnumbered Interface ID ER-Hop follows the rules specified in
section 4.8.1 of [CR-LDP]. section 4.8.1 of [CR-LDP].
As part of the Explicit Route TLV processing, or to be more precise, As part of the Explicit Route TLV processing, or to be more precise,
as part of the next hop selection, if the outgoing link is as part of the next hop selection, if the outgoing link is
unnumbered, the REQUEST message that the node sends to the next hop unnumbered, the REQUEST message that the node sends to the next hop
MUST include the IF_ID TLV, with the IP address field of that TLV set MUST include the IF_ID TLV, with the IP address field of that TLV set
to the Router ID of the node, and the Interface ID field of that TLV to the Router ID of the node, and the Interface ID field of that TLV
set to the identifier assigned to the link by the node. set to the identifier assigned to the link by the node.
8. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
RFC3036 [LDP] defines the LDP TLV name space. RFC3212 [CD-LDP] RFC 3036 [LDP] defines the LDP TLV name space. RFC 3212 [CD-LDP]
further subdivides the range of that TLV space for TLVs associated further subdivides the range of that TLV space for TLVs associated
with the CR-LDP in the range 0x0800 - 0x08FF, and defines the rules with the CR-LDP in the range 0x0800 - 0x08FF, and defines the rules
for the assignment of TLVs within that range using the terminology of for the assignment of TLVs within that range using the terminology of
BCP 26 "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in BCP 26, RFC 2434, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations
RFCs". Those rules apply to the assignment of TLV Types for the Section in RFCs". Those rules apply to the assignment of TLV Types
Unnumbered Interface ID and LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID TLVs defined in for the Unnumbered Interface ID and LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID TLVs
this document. defined in this document.
9. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
This document extends CR-LDP and raises no new security issues. CR- This document extends CR-LDP and raises no new security issues. CR-
LDP inherits the same security mechanism described in Section 4.0 of LDP inherits the same security mechanism described in Section 4.0 of
[LDP] to protect against the introduction of spoofed TCP segments [LDP] to protect against the introduction of spoofed TCP segments
into LDP session connection streams. into LDP session connection streams.
10. Acknowledgments 7. Acknowledgments
Thanks to Rahul Aggarwal for his comments on the text. Thanks too to Thanks to Rahul Aggarwal for his comments on the text. Thanks also
Bora Akyol, Vach Kompella, and George Swallow. to Bora Akyol, Vach Kompella, and George Swallow.
11. References 8. References
11.1. Normative references 8.1. Normative References
[CR-LDP] Jamoussi, B., editor, "Constraint-Based LSP Setup using [CR-LDP] Jamoussi, B., Andersson, L., Callon, R., Dantu, R., Wu,
LDP", RFC3212, December 2001 L., Doolan, P., Worster, T., Feldman, N., Fredette, A.,
Girish, M., Gray, E., Heinanen, J., Kilty, T. and A.
Malis, "Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP", RFC
3212, January 2002.
[GMPLS-SIG] Ashwood, P., et al., "Generalized MPLS - Signalling [GMPLS-SIG] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
Functional Description", draft-ietf-generalized-mpls- (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471,
signalling-08.txt January 2003.
[GMPLS-CRLDP] Ashwood, P., et al., "Generalized MPLS Signaling - CR- [GMPLS-CRLDP] Ashwood, P., Ed. and L. Berger, "Generalized Multi-
LDP Extensions", draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-06.txt Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Constraint-
based Routed Label Distribution Protocol (CR-LDP)
Extensions", RFC 3472 January 2003.
[LDP] Andersson, Loa, et al., "LDP Specification" RFC3036, January [LDP] Andersson, L., Doolan, P., Feldman, N., Fredette, A.
2001 and B. Thomas, "LDP Specification", RFC 3036, January
2001
[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.
11.2. Non-normative references 8.2. Informative References
[LINK-BUNDLE] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., and Berger, L., "Link [LINK-BUNDLE] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., and Berger, L., "Link
Bundling in MPLS Traffic Engineering", draft-kompella-mpls- Bundling in MPLS Traffic Engineering", Work in
bundle-05.txt (work in progress) Progress.
[LSP-HIER] Kompella, K., and Rekhter, Y., "LSP Hierarchy with MPLS [LSP-HIER] Kompella, K., and Rekhter, Y., "LSP Hierarchy with MPLS
TE", draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-02.txt (work in progress) TE", Work in Progress.
[LMP] Lang, J., Mitra, K., et al., "Link Management Protocol (LMP)", [LMP] Lang, J., Mitra, K., et al., "Link Management Protocol
draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-03.txt (work in progress) (LMP)", Work in Progress.
[GMPLS-ISIS] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., Banerjee, A. et al, "IS-IS [GMPLS-ISIS] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., Banerjee, A. et al, "IS-IS
Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS", draft-ietf-isis-gmpls- Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS", Work in
extensions-11.txt (work in progress) Progress.
[GMPLS-OSPF] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., Banerjee, A. et al, "OSPF [GMPLS-OSPF] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., Banerjee, A. et al, "OSPF
Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS", draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf- Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS", Work in
gmpls-extensions-07.txt (work in progress) Progress.
[OSPF-TE] Katz, D., Yeung, D., Kompella, K., "Traffic Engineering [OSPF-TE] Katz, D., Yeung, D., Kompella, K., "Traffic Engineering
Extensions to OSPF Version 2", draft-katz-yeung-ospf-traffic-07.txt Extensions to OSPF Version 2", Work in Progress.
(work in progress)
[ISIS-TE] Li, T., Smit, H., "IS-IS extensions for Traffic [ISIS-TE] Li, T., Smit, H., "IS-IS extensions for Traffic
Engineering", draft-ietf-isis-traffic-03.txt (work in progress) Engineering", Work in Progress.
12. Author Information 9. Authors' Addresses
Kireeti Kompella
Juniper Networks, Inc.
1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
e-mail: kireeti@juniper.net
Yakov Rekhter Kireeti Kompella
Juniper Networks, Inc. Juniper Networks, Inc.
1194 N. Mathilda Ave. 1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089 Sunnyvale, CA 94089
e-mail: yakov@juniper.net
Alan Kullberg EMail: kireeti@juniper.net
NetPlane Systems, Inc.
Westwood Executive Center Yakov Rekhter
200 Lowder Brook Drive Juniper Networks, Inc.
Westwood, MA 02090 1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
e-mail: akullber@netplane.com Sunnyvale, CA 94089
EMail: yakov@juniper.net
Alan Kullberg
NetPlane Systems, Inc.
Westwood Executive Center
200 Lowder Brook Drive
Westwood, MA 02090
EMail: akullber@netplane.com
10. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
 End of changes. 54 change blocks. 
129 lines changed or deleted 120 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/