draft-ietf-mpls-nodeid-subobject-05.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-nodeid-subobject-06.txt 
Jean Philippe Vasseur (Editor) Internet Draft Jean-Philippe Vasseur (Editor)
Zafar Ali MPLS WG Zafar Ali
Siva Sivabalan Siva Sivabalan
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
IETF Internet Draft Proposed Status: Standard
Expires: July, 2005 Expires: November 2005
January, 2005 May 2005
draft-ietf-mpls-nodeid-subobject-05.txt draft-ietf-mpls-nodeid-subobject-06.txt
Definition of an RRO node-id subobject Definition of an RRO node-id subobject
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable patent By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, and any of applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668. 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.
Working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material
or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 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/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Vasseur, Ali and Sivabalan 1 Vasseur, Ali and Sivabalan 1
Abstract Abstract
In the context of MPLS TE Fast Reroute, the Merge Point (MP) address is In the context of MPLS TE Fast Reroute, the Merge Point (MP) address is
required at the Point of Local Repair (PLR) in order to select a backup required at the Point of Local Repair (PLR) in order to select a backup
tunnel intersecting a fast reroutable Traffic Engineering LSP on a tunnel intersecting a fast reroutable Traffic Engineering Label
downstream LSR. However, existing protocol mechanisms are not Switched Path (TE LSP) on a downstream Label Switch Router (LSR).
sufficient to find an MP address in multi-areas or multi-domain routing However, existing protocol mechanisms are not sufficient to find an MP
networks. Hence, the current MPLS Fast Reroute mechanism cannot be used address in multi-domain routing networks where a domain is defined as
to protect inter-area or inter-AS TE LSPs from a failure of an ABR an IGP area or an Autonomous System. Hence, the current MPLS Fast
(Area Border Router) or ASBR (Autonomous System Border Router) Reroute mechanism cannot be used to protect inter-domain TE LSPs from a
respectively. Such functionality has been listed as a clear requirement failure of an ABR (Area Border Router) or ASBR (Autonomous System
in [INTER-AREA-TE-REQS] and [INTER-AS-TE-REQS]. This document specifies Border Router) respectively. This document specifies the use of
the use of existing RRO IPv4 and IPv6 subobjects (with a new flag existing Route Record Object (RRO) IPv4 and IPv6 sub-objects (with a
defined) to define the node-id subobject in order to solve this issue. new flag defined) thus defining the node-id subobject in order to solve
Note that the MPLS Fast reroute mechanism mentioned in this document this issue. Note that the MPLS Fast reroute mechanism mentioned in this
refers to the "Facility backup" MPLS TE Fast Reroute method. document refers to the "Facility backup" MPLS TE Fast Reroute method.
Table of content Table of content
1. Terminology ----------------------------- 2 1. Terminology -----------------------------
2. Introduction ---------------------------- 3 2. Introduction ----------------------------
3. Signaling node-ids in RROs -------------- 5 3. Signaling node-ids in RROs -------------
4. Finding Merge Point --------------------- 6 4. Finding Merge Point ---------------------
5. Security Considerations ----------------- 6 5. Security Considerations -----------------
6. Intellectual Property Considerations ---- 6 6. IANA Consideration
7. Acknowledgments ------------------------- 7 7. Intellectual Property Considerations ----
8. References ------------------------------ 7 8. Acknowledgments -------------------------
9. References
9.1 Normative references
9.2 Informative references
10. Authors' addresses
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 this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [i]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [i].
1. Terminology 1. Terminology
LSR - Label Switch Router Bypass Tunnel: an LSP that is used to protect a set of LSPs passing
over a common facility.
LSP - An MPLS Label Switched Path Backup Tunnel: the LSP that is used to backup up one of the many LSPs
in many-to-one backup.
PCS - Path Computation Server (may be any kind of LSR (ABR, ...) CSPF: Constraint-based Shortest Path First.
or a centralized path computation server
PCC - Path Computation Client (any head-end LSR) requesting a path Inter-area TE LSP: TE LSP whose head-end LSR and tail-end LSR do not
computation of the Path Computation Server. reside within the same IGP area or whose head-end LSR and tail-end LSR
Local Repair - Techniques used to repair LSP tunnels quickly Vasseur, Ali and Sivabalan 2
when a node or link along the LSPs path fails.
Protected LSP - An LSP is said to be protected at a given hop if are both in the same IGP area although the TE-LSP transiting path may
be across different IGP areas.
Vasseur, Ali and Sivabalan 2 Inter-AS MPLS TE LSP: TE LSP whose Head-end LSR and Tail-end LSR do not
it has one or multiple associated backup tunnels reside within the same Autonomous System (AS) or both Head-end
originating at that hop. LSR and Tail-end LSR are in the same AS but the TE tunnel transiting
path may be across different ASes
Bypass Tunnel - An LSP that is used to protect a set of LSPs Interconnect or ASBR Routers: Routers used to connect to another AS of
passing over a common facility. a different or the same Service Provider via one or more Inter-AS
links.
Backup Tunnel - The LSP that is used to backup up one of the many LER: Label Edge Router.
LSPs in many-to-one backup.
PLR - Point of Local Repair. The head-end of a backup tunnel or LSDB: Link State Database.
a detour LSP.
MP - Merge Point. The LSR where detour or backup tunnels meet LSP: An MPLS Label Switched Path
the protected LSP. In case of one-to-one backup, this is where
multiple detours converge. A MP may also be a PLR.
Reroutable LSP - Any LSP for with the "Local protection desired" LSR: Label Switch Router
bit is set in the Flag field of the
SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object of its Path messages.
Inter-AS MPLS TE LSP: TE LSP whose Head-end LSR and Tail-end LSR do Local Repair: techniques used to repair LSP tunnels quickly when a node
not reside within the same Autonomous System (AS) or both Head-end or link along the LSPs path fails.
LSR and Tail-end LSR are in the same AS but the TE tunnel
transiting path may be across different ASes
Interconnect or ASBR Routers: Routers used to connect to another AS of PCC: Path Computation Client: any client application requesting a path
a different or the same Service Provider via one or more Inter-AS computation to be performed by the Path Computation Element.
links.
PCE: Path Computation Element: an entity (component, application or
network node) that is capable of computing a network path or route
based on a network graph and applying computational constraints (see
further description in section 3).
MP: Merge Point. The LSR where detour or backup tunnels meet the
protected LSP. In case of one-to-one backup, this is where multiple
detours converge. A MP may also be a PLR.
Protected LSP: an LSP is said to be protected at a given hop if it has
one or multiple associated backup tunnels originating at that hop.
PLR: Point of Local Repair. The head-end of a backup tunnel or a detour
LSP.
Reroutable LSP: Any LSP for with the "Local protection desired" bit is
set in the Flag field of the SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object of its Path
messages.
2. Introduction 2. Introduction
MPLS Fast Reroute (FRR) ([FAST-REROUTE]) is a fast recovery local MPLS Fast Reroute (FRR) ([FAST-REROUTE]) is a fast recovery local
protection technique used to protect Traffic Engineering LSPs from protection technique used to protect Traffic Engineering LSPs from
link/SRLG/node failure. One or more backup tunnels are pre-established link/SRLG/node failure. One or more backup tunnels are pre-established
to protect against the failure of a link/node/SRLG. In case of failure, to protect against the failure of a link/node/SRLG. In case of failure,
Vasseur, Ali and Sivabalan 3
every protected TE LSP traversing the failed resource is rerouted onto every protected TE LSP traversing the failed resource is rerouted onto
the appropriate backup tunnels in 10s of msecs. the appropriate backup tunnels in tens of msecs.
There are a couple of requirements on the backup tunnel path. At least, There are several requirements on the backup tunnel path that must be
a backup tunnel should not pass through the element it protects. satisfied. First, the backup tunnel must not traverse the element that
Additionally, a primary tunnel and its associated backup tunnel should it protects. Additionally, a primary tunnel and its associated backup
intersect at least at two points (nodes): Point of Local Repair (PLR) tunnel should intersect at least at two points (nodes): Point of Local
and Merge Point (MP). The former should be the head-end LSR of the Repair (PLR) and Merge Point (MP). The former should be the head-end
backup tunnel, and the latter should be the tail-end LSR of the backup LSR of the backup tunnel and the latter should be the tail-end LSR of
tunnel. The PLR is where FRR is triggered when link/node/SRLG failure the backup tunnel. The PLR is where FRR is triggered when
happens. link/node/SRLG failure happens.
There are different methods for computing paths for backup tunnels at a There are different methods for computing paths for backup tunnels at a
given PLR. Specifically, a user can statically configure one or more given PLR. Specifically, a user can statically configure one or more
backup tunnels at the PLR, with explicit path or the PLR can be backup tunnels at the PLR with an explicitly configured path or the PLR
can be configured to automatically compute a backup path or to send a
Vasseur, Ali and Sivabalan 3 path computation request to a PCE.
configured to automatically compute a backup path or to send a path
computation request to a PCS (which can be an LSR or an off-line tool).
Consider the following scenario (figure 1) Consider the following scenario (figure 1)
Assumptions: Assumptions:
- A multi-area network made of three areas: 0, 1 and 2. - A multi-area network made of three areas: 0, 1 and 2,
- A fast reroutable TE LSP T1 (TE LSP signaled with the "local - A fast reroutable TE LSP T1 (TE LSP signaled with the "local
Protection desired" bit set in the SESSION-ATTRIBUTE object or the FRR Protection desired" bit set in the SESSION-ATTRIBUTE object or the
object) from R0 to R3 FAST-REROUTE object) from R0 to R3,
- A backup tunnel B1 from R1 to R2, not traversing ABR1, and following - A backup tunnel B1 from R1 to R2, not traversing ABR1, and following
the R1-ABR3-R2 path. R1 reroutes any protected TE LSP traversing ABR1 the R1-ABR3-R2 path.
onto the backup tunnel B1 in case of ABR1's failure. - The PLR R1 reroutes any protected TE LSP traversing ABR1 onto the
backup tunnel B1 in case of ABR1's failure.
<--- area 1 --><---area 0---><---area 2---> <--- area 1 --><---area 0---><---area 2--->
R0-----R1-ABR1--R2------ABR2--------R3 R0-----R1-ABR1--R2------ABR2--------R3
\ / \ /
\ ABR3 / \ /
ABR3
Figure 1: Use of Fast Reroute to protect against an ABR failure with Figure 1: Use of Fast Reroute to protect a TE LSP against an ABR
MPLS Traffic Engineering Fast Reroute failure with MPLS Traffic Engineering Fast Reroute
When T1 is first signaled, the PLR R1 needs to dynamically select an When T1 is first signaled, the PLR R1 needs to dynamically select an
appropriate backup tunnel intersecting T1 on a downstream LSR. However, appropriate backup tunnel intersecting T1 on a downstream LSR. However,
existing protocol mechanisms are not sufficient to unambiguously find existing protocol mechanisms are not sufficient to unambiguously find
the MP address in a network with inter-area or inter-AS traffic the MP address in a network with inter-domain TE LSP. Note that
engineering (although the example above was given in the context of although the example above was given in the context of inter-area TE
multi-area networks, a similar reasoning applies to TE LSP spanning LSPs, a similar reasoning applies to the case of inter-AS TE LSP. This
multiple ASes). This document addresses these limitations. document addresses these limitations.
R1 needs to ensure the following: R1 needs to ensure the following:
1. Backup tunnel intersects with the primary tunnel at the MP (and 1. The backup tunnel intersects with the primary tunnel at the MP
thus has a valid MP address), e.g., in Figure 1, R1 needs to (and thus has a valid MP address). For the sake of illustration,
determine that T1 and B1 share the same MP node R2,
2. Backup tunnel satisfies the primary LSP's request with respect to Vasseur, Ali and Sivabalan 4
the bandwidth protection request (i.e., bandwidth guaranteed for in Figure 1, R1 needs to determine that T1 and B1 share the same
the primary tunnel during failure), and the type of protection MP node R2.
(preferably, protecting against a node failure versus a link
failure), as specified in [FAST-REROUTE]. 2. The backup tunnel satisfies the primary LSP's request with
respect to the bandwidth protection request (i.e., bandwidth
guaranteed for the primary tunnel during failure), and the type
of protection (preferably, protecting against a node failure
versus a link failure), as specified in [FAST-REROUTE].
A PLR can make sure that condition (1) is met by examining the Record A PLR can make sure that condition (1) is met by examining the Record
Route Object (RRO) of the primary tunnel to see if any of the addresses Route Object (RRO) of the primary tunnel to see if any of the addresses
specified in the RRO is attached to the tail-end of the backup tunnel. specified in the RRO is attached to the tail-end of the backup tunnel.
As per [RSVP-TE], the addresses specified in the RRO IPv4 or IPv6 As per [RSVP-TE], the addresses specified in the RRO IPv4 or IPv6 sub-
subobjects sent in Resv messages can be node-ids and/or interface objects sent in Resv messages can be node-ids and/or interface
addresses. Hence, in Figure 1, router R2 may specify interface addresses. Hence, in Figure 1, router R2 may specify interface
addresses in the RROs for T1 and B1. Note that these interface addresses in the RROs for T1 and B1. Note that these interface
addresses are different in this example. addresses are different in this example.
Vasseur, Ali and Sivabalan 4
The problem of finding the MP using the interface addresses or node-ids The problem of finding the MP using the interface addresses or node-ids
can be easily solved in a single area (OSPF_)/level (IS-IS). can be easily solved in the case of a single IGP area. Specifically, in
Specifically, in the case of single area/level, the PLR has the the case of a single IGP area, the PLR has the knowledge of all the
knowledge of all the interfaces attached to the tail-end of the backup interfaces attached to the tail-end of the backup tunnel. This
tunnel. This information is available in PLR's IGP topology database. information is available in PLR's IGP topology database. Thus, the PLR
Thus, the PLR can determine whether a backup tunnel intersecting a can unambiguously determine whether a backup tunnel intersecting a
protected TE LSP on a downstream node exists and can also find the MP protected TE LSP on a downstream node exists and can also find the MP
address regardless of how the addresses contained in the RRO IPv4 or address regardless of how the addresses carried in the RRO IPv4 or IPv6
IPv6 subobjects are specified (i.e., whether using the interface sub-objects are specified (i.e., whether using the interface addresses
addresses or the node IDs). However, such routing information is not or the node-ids). However, such routing information is not available in
available in multi-area and inter-AS traffic engineering environments. the case of inter-domain environments. Hence, unambiguously making sure
Hence, unambiguously making sure that condition (1) above is met with that condition (1) above is met in the case of inter-domain TE LSPs is
inter-area TE and inter-AS traffic-engineering TE LSPs is not possible not possible with existing mechanisms.
with existing mechanisms.
In this document, we define extensions to and describe the use of RSVP In this document, we define extensions to and describe the use of RSVP
[RSVP, RSVP-TE] to solve the above-mentioned problem. [RSVP, RSVP-TE] to solve the above-mentioned problem. Note that the
requirement for the support of the fast recovery technique specified in
[FAST-REROUTE] to inter-domain TE LSPs has been specified in [INTER-
AREA-TE-REQS] and [INTER-AREA-TE-REQS].
3. Signaling node-ids in RROs 2. Signaling node-ids in RROs
As mentioned above, the limitation that we need to address is the As mentioned above, the limitation that we need to address is the
generality of the contents of the RRO IPv4 and IPv6 subobjects, as generality of the contents of the RRO IPv4 and IPv6 sub-objects, as
defined in [RSVP-TE].[RSVP-TE] defines the IPv4 and IPv6 RRO subobjects defined in [RSVP-TE]. [RSVP-TE] defines the IPv4 and IPv6 RRO sub-
along with two flags (namely the "Local Protection Available" and objects. Moreover, two additional flags are defined in [FAST-REROUTE]:
"Local protection in use" bits). Moreover, other bits have been the "Local Protection Available" and "Local protection in use" bits.
specified in [FAST-REROUTE] and [SOFT-PREEMPTION].
In this document, we define the following new flag: In this document, we define the following new flag:
Node-id: 0x20 Node-id: 0x20
Vasseur, Ali and Sivabalan 5
When set, this indicates that the address specified in the When set, this indicates that the address specified in the
RRO's IPv4 or IPv6 subobject is a node-id address, which refers RRO's IPv4 or IPv6 subobject is a node-id address, which refers
to the "Router Address" as defined in [OSPF-TE], or "Traffic to the "Router Address" as defined in [OSPF-TE], or "Traffic
Engineering Router ID" as defined in [ISIS-TE]. A node MUST use Engineering Router ID" as defined in [ISIS-TE]. A node MUST use
the same address consistently. In other words, once an address the same address consistently. Once an address is used in RRO's
is used in RRO's IPv4 or IPv6 subobject, it should always be IPv4 or IPv6 subobject, it should always be used for the
used for the lifetime of the LSP. lifetime of the LSP.
An IPv4 or IPv6 RRO subobject with the node-id flag set is also called An IPv4 or IPv6 RRO subobject with the node-id flag set is also called
a node-id subobject. The problem of finding a MP address in a network a node-id subobject. The problem of finding a MP address in a network
with inter-area or inter-AS traffic engineering is solved by inserting with inter-domain TE LSP is solved by inserting a node-id subobject (an
a node-id subobject (an RRO "IPv4" and "IPv6" sub-object with the 0x20 RRO "IPv4" and "IPv6" sub-object with the 0x20 flag set) in the RRO
flag set). object carried in the RSVP Resv message.
An implementation may either decide to: An implementation may either decide to:
1) Add the node-id subobject in an RSVP Resv message and, when 1) Add the node-id subobject in an RSVP Resv message and, when
required, also add another IPv4/IPv6 subobject to record interface required, also add another IPv4/IPv6 subobject to record interface
address. address.
Vasseur, Ali and Sivabalan 5 Example: an inter-domain fast reroutable TE LSP would have in the RRO
object carried in Resv message two sub-objects: a node-id subobject and
Example: a fast reroutable TE LSP would have in the RRO object carried a label sub-object. If recording the interface address is required,
in Resv message two subobjects: a node-id subobject and a label then an additional IPv4/IPv6 subobject is added.
subobject. If recording the interface address is required, then an
additional IPv4/IPv6 subobject is added.
2) Add an IPv4/IPv6 subobject recording the interface address and, when 2) Add an IPv4/IPv6 sub-object recording the interface address and,
required, add a node-id subobject in the RRO object. when required, add a node-id subobject in the RRO object.
Example: an inter-area/inter-AS fast reroutable TE LSP would have in Example: an inter-domain fast reroutable TE LSP would have in the RRO
the RRO object carried in Resv message three subobjects: an IPv4/IPv6 object carried in Resv message three sub-objects: an IPv4/IPv6 sub-
subobject recording interface address, a label subobject and a node-id object recording interface address, a label sub-object and a node-id
subobject. sub-object.
Note also, that the node-id subobject may have other application than Note also that the node-id sub-object may have other application than
Fast Reroute backup tunnel selection. Moreover, it is RECOMMENDED that Fast Reroute backup tunnel selection. Moreover, it is RECOMMENDED that
an LSR recording a node-id address in an IPv4/IPv6 RRO sub-object also an LSR recording a node-id address in an IPv4/IPv6 RRO sub-object also
set the Node-id flag. set the Node-id flag.
4. Finding Merge Point 3. Finding Merge Point
Two cases should be considered: Two cases should be considered:
- case 1: the backup tunnel destination is the MP's node-id. Then a PLR - Case 1: the backup tunnel destination is the MP's node-id. Then a PLR
can find the MP and suitable backup tunnel by simply comparing the can find the MP and suitable backup tunnel by simply comparing the
backup tunnel's destination address with the node-id included in the backup tunnel's destination address with the node-id included in the
RRO of the primary tunnel. RRO of the primary tunnel.
- case 2: the backup tunnel terminates at an address different than the - Case 2: the backup tunnel terminates at an address different than the
MP's node-id. Then a node-id subobject MUST also be included in the RRO MP's node-id. Then a node-id subobject MUST also be included in the RRO
object of the backup tunnel. A PLR can find the MP and suitable backup object of the backup tunnel. A PLR can find the MP and suitable backup
tunnel by simply comparing the node-ids present in the RRO objects of tunnel by simply comparing the node-ids present in the RRO objects of
both the primary and backup tunnels. both the primary and backup tunnels.
Vasseur, Ali and Sivabalan 6
When both IPv4 node-id and IPv6 node-id sub-objects are present, a PLR When both IPv4 node-id and IPv6 node-id sub-objects are present, a PLR
may use any or both of them in finding the MP address. may use any or both of them in finding the MP address.
5. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce new security issues. The security This document does not introduce new security issues. The security
considerations pertaining to [RSVP] and [RSVP-TE] remain relevant. considerations pertaining to [RSVP] and [RSVP-TE] remain relevant.
5. IANA considerations
IANA will assign a new flag in the RRO object defined in [RSVP-TE]:
Node-id flag: 0x20 (to be assigned by IANA).
6. Intellectual Property Considerations 6. Intellectual Property Considerations
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 or other rights that might be claimed to pertain Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
to the implementation or use of the technology described in this pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might not be available; neither does it represent that it has made any might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made
effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and standards- procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP
related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of claims of 78 and BCP 79.
rights made available for publication and any assurances of licenses to
Vasseur, Ali and Sivabalan 6
be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
implementors or users of this specification can be obtained from the attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
IETF Secretariat. 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 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights
which may cover technology that may be required to practice this that may cover technology that may be required to implement this
standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
Director. ipr@ietf.org.
The IETF has been notified of intellectual property rights claimed in
regard to some or all of the specification contained in this document.
For more information consult the online list of claimed rights.
7. Acknowledgments 7. Acknowledgments
We would like to acknowledge input and helpful comments from Carol We would like to acknowledge input and helpful comments from Carol
Iturralde, Anca Zamfir, Reshad Rahman, Rob Goguen, Philip Matthews and Iturralde, Anca Zamfir, Reshad Rahman, Rob Goguen, Philip Matthews and
Adrian Farrel. Adrian Farrel.
8. References 8. References
Normative References 8.1 Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Vasseur, Ali and Sivabalan 7
[RFC3667] Bradner, S., "IETF Rights in Contributions", BCP 78, RFC 3667, [RFC3667] Bradner, S., "IETF Rights in Contributions", BCP 78, RFC 3667,
February 2004. February 2004.
[RFC3668] Bradner, S., Ed., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF [RFC3668] Bradner, S., Ed., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3668, February 2004. Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3668, February 2004.
[RSVP] Braden, et al, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) - Version [RSVP] Braden, et al, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) - Version
1, Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997. 1, Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.
[RSVP-TE] Awduche, et al, "Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC [RSVP-TE] Awduche, et al, "Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC
3209, December 2001. 3209, December 2001.
Informative references
[FAST-REROUTE] Ping Pan, et al, "Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for [FAST-REROUTE] Ping Pan, et al, "Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for
LSP Tunnels", draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-fastreroute-07.txt. Work in LSP Tunnels", draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-fastreroute-07.txt. Work in
progress. progress.
[OSPF-TE] Katz et al., "Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF [OSPF-TE] Katz et al., "Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF
Version 2", RFC3630. Version 2", RFC3630.
[ISIS-TE] Smit et al., "Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS- [ISIS-TE] Smit et al., "Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-
IS) - Extensions for Traffic Engineering (TE)IS-IS extensions for IS) - Extensions for Traffic Engineering (TE)IS-IS extensions for
Traffic Engineering", RFC3784. Traffic Engineering", RFC3784.
Vasseur, Ali and Sivabalan 7 8.2 Informative references
[INTER-AREA-TE-REQS] Le Roux, Vasseur, Boyle et al., "Requirements for [INTER-AREA-TE-REQS] Le Roux, Vasseur, Boyle et al., "Requirements for
Inter-Area MPLS Traffic Engineering", draft-ietf-tewg-interarea-mpls-te- Inter-Area MPLS Traffic Engineering", draft-ietf-tewg-interarea-mpls-te-
req-03.txt. Work in progress. req-03.txt. Work in progress.
[INTER-AS-TE-REQS] Zhang, Vasseur et al, "MPLS Inter-AS Traffic [INTER-AS-TE-REQS] Zhang, Vasseur et al, "MPLS Inter-AS Traffic
Engineering requirements", draft-tewg-interas-te-req-09.txt. Work in Engineering requirements", draft-tewg-interas-te-req-09.txt. Work in
progress. progress.
[INTER-DOMAIN-SIG] Ayyangar and Vasseur, "Inter domain GMPLS Traffic 9. Authors' Addresses
Engineering - RSVP-TE extensions", draft-ayyangar-ccamp-inter-domain-
rsvp-te-01.txt. Work in progress.
[LOOSE-PATH-REOPT] Vasseur et al. "Reoptimization of MPLS
Traffic Engineering loosely routed LSP", <draft-ietf-ccamp-loose-path-
reopt-00.txt>. Work in progress.
[SOFT-PREEMPTION] Meyer, Maddux, Vasseur, Villamizar and Birjandi. "MPLS
Traffic Engineering Soft preemption", draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption-
03.txt. Work in progress.
Authors' Addresses:
Jean Philippe Vasseur Jean-Philippe Vasseur
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
300 Beaver Brook Road 300 Beaver Brook Road
Boxborough , MA - 01719 Boxborough , MA - 01719
USA USA
Email: jpv@cisco.com Email: jpv@cisco.com
Zafar Ali Zafar Ali
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
100 South Main St. #200 100 South Main St. #200
Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Ann Arbor, MI 48104
USA USA
zali@cisco.com zali@cisco.com
Vasseur, Ali and Sivabalan 8
Siva Sivabalan Siva Sivabalan
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
2000 Innovation Drive 2000 Innovation Drive
Kanata, Ontario, K2K 3E8 Kanata, Ontario, K2K 3E8
Canada Canada
msiva@cisco.com msiva@cisco.com
Full Copyright Statement Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject Full Copyright Statement
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). 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 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
Vasseur, Ali and Sivabalan 8
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Vasseur, Ali and Sivabalan 9 Vasseur, Ali and Sivabalan 9
 End of changes. 

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.23, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/