draft-ietf-mpls-rsvpte-attributes-02.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-rsvpte-attributes-03.txt 
skipping to change at line 14 skipping to change at line 14
Category: Standards Track Category: Standards Track
Expires: July 2004 Dimitri Papadimitriou Expires: July 2004 Dimitri Papadimitriou
Alcatel Alcatel
Jean-Philippe Vasseur Jean-Philippe Vasseur
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Arthi Ayyangar Arthi Ayyangar
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
January 2004 March 2004
Encoding of Attributes for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Encoding of Attributes for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)
Label Switched Path (LSP) Establishment Using RSVP-TE Label Switched Path (LSP) Establishment Using RSVP-TE
draft-ietf-mpls-rsvpte-attributes-02.txt draft-ietf-mpls-rsvpte-attributes-03.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance
with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026 [RFC2026]. with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026 [RFC2026].
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
skipping to change at line 66 skipping to change at line 66
to record the attributes applied to the LSP on a hop-by-hop basis. to record the attributes applied to the LSP on a hop-by-hop basis.
The object mechanisms defined in this document are equally applicable The object mechanisms defined in this document are equally applicable
to Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Packet Switch Capable (PSC) LSPs and to to Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Packet Switch Capable (PSC) LSPs and to
GMPLS non-PSC LSPs. GMPLS non-PSC LSPs.
0. Change History 0. Change History
This section to be removed before publication. This section to be removed before publication.
0.1 Changes from 01 to 02 Version 0.1 Changes from 02 to 03 Version
- Allow LSP_ATTRIBUTES object on Resv message.
- Document inheritance rules.
- Add table of Contents.
- New IPR and Copyright boiler-plate.
0.2 Changes from 01 to 02 Version
- Minor typographical changes. - Minor typographical changes.
0.2 Changes from 00 to 01 Version 0.3 Changes from 00 to 01 Version
- Change Attributes Flags TLV to be variable length so that more bits - Change Attributes Flags TLV to be variable length so that more bits
can easily be added in the future. can easily be added in the future.
- Define default behaviors for bits absent from the TLV and for - Define default behaviors for bits absent from the TLV and for
absence of the TLV. absence of the TLV.
- Clarify the IANA requirements for tracking Attributes Flags bits. - Clarify the IANA requirements for tracking Attributes Flags bits.
- Introduce RRO Attibutes Subobject and describe usage. - Introduce RRO Attributes Subobject and describe usage.
- Move Fast Reroute reference to informational. - Move Fast Reroute reference to informational.
- Update security considerations to handle new RRO subobject - Update security considerations to handle new RRO subobject
- Remove section that explained the need for this document in - Remove section that explained the need for this document in
advance of any definitive bit definitions. advance of any definitive bit definitions.
- Tighten rules for processing LSP_ATTRIBUTES object in cases where - Tighten rules for processing LSP_ATTRIBUTES object in cases where
TLVs are unknown or unsupported. TLVs are unknown or unsupported.
- Clarify that LSP Attributes apply to individual LSPs and not to - Clarify that LSP Attributes apply to individual LSPs and not to
entire sessions. entire sessions.
Contents
1. Introduction and Problem Statement 3
1.1 Applicability to Generalized MPLS 4
1.2 A Rejected Alternate Solution 4
2. Terminology 5
3. Attributes TLVs 5
3.1 Attributes Flags TLV 5
4. LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object 6
4.1 Format 7
4.2 Generic Processing Rules for Path Messages 7
4.3 Generic Processing Rules for Resv Messages 7
5. LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object 8
5.1 Format 8
5.2 Generic Processing Rules 8
6. Inheritance Rules 9
7. Recording Attributes Per-LSP 9
7.1 Requirements 9
7.2 RRO Attributes Subobject 10
7.3 Procedures 10
7.3.1 Subobject Presence Rules 10
7.3.2 Reporting Compliance with LSP Attributes 11
7.3.3 Reporting Per-Hop Attributes 11
7.3.4 Default Behavior 11
8. Summary of Attribute Bit Allocation 11
9. Message Formats 12
10. IANA Considerations 13
10.1 New RSVP C-Nums and C-Types 13
10.2 New TLV Space 13
10.3 Attributes Flags 14
10.4 SESSION_ATTRIBUTE Flags Field 14
10.5 New Error Codes 14
10.6 New Record Route Subobject Identifier 14
11. Security Considerations 15
12. Acknowledgements 15
13. Intellectual Property Consideration 15
13.1 IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement 16
14. Normative References 16
15. Informative References 16
16. Authors' Addresses 17
17. Full Copyright Statement 17
1. Introduction and Problem Statement 1. Introduction and Problem Statement
Traffic Engineered Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Traffic Engineered Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label
Switched Paths (LSPs) [RFC3031] may be set up using the Path message Switched Paths (LSPs) [RFC3031] may be set up using the Path message
of the RSVP-TE signaling protocol [RFC3209]. The Path message of the RSVP-TE signaling protocol [RFC3209]. The Path message
includes the SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object which carries a flags field includes the SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object which carries a flags field
used to indicate desired options and attributes of the LSP. used to indicate desired options and attributes of the LSP.
The flags field in the SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object has eight bits. Just The flags field in the SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object has eight bits. Just
three of those bits are assigned in [RFC3209]. A further two bits are three of those bits are assigned in [RFC3209]. A further two bits are
skipping to change at line 120 skipping to change at line 169
of: of:
- further bit flags if further, distinct uses are discovered - further bit flags if further, distinct uses are discovered
- arbitrary options and attributes parameters carried as individual - arbitrary options and attributes parameters carried as individual
TLVs. TLVs.
Note that the LSP Attributes defined in this document are Note that the LSP Attributes defined in this document are
specifically scoped to an LSP. They may be set differently on specifically scoped to an LSP. They may be set differently on
separate LSPs with the same Tunnel ID between the same source and separate LSPs with the same Tunnel ID between the same source and
destination (that is, within the same Session). destination (that is, within the same Session).
It is noted that that some options and attributes do not need to be It is noted that some options and attributes do not need to be
acted on by all Label Switched Routers (LSRs) along the path of the acted on by all Label Switched Routers (LSRs) along the path of the
LSP. In particular, these options and attributes may apply only to LSP. In particular, these options and attributes may apply only to
key LSRs on the path such as the ingress and egress. Special transit key LSRs on the path such as the ingress and egress. Special transit
LSRs, such as area or AS Border Routers (ABR/ASBRs) may also fall LSRs, such as Area or AS Border Routers (ABRs/ASBRs) may also fall
into this category. This means that the new options and attributes into this category. This means that the new options and attributes
should be signaled transparently, and only examined at those points should be signaled transparently, and only examined at those points
that need to act on them. that need to act on them.
On the other hand, other options and attributes may require action On the other hand, other options and attributes may require action
at all transit LSRs along the path of the LSP. Inability to support at all transit LSRs along the path of the LSP. Inability to support
the required attributes by one of those transit LSRs may require the the required attributes by one of those transit LSRs may require the
LSR to refuse the establishment of the LSP. LSR to refuse the establishment of the LSP.
These considerations are particularly important in the context of These considerations are particularly important in the context of
backwards compatibility. In general, it should be possible to provide backwards compatibility. In general, it should be possible to provide
new MPLS services across a legacy network without upgrading those new MPLS services across a legacy network without upgrading those
LSRs that do not need to participate actively in the new services. LSRs that do not need to participate actively in the new services.
Moreover, some features just require action on specific intermediate
hops, and not on every visited LSR.
Note that options already specified for the SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object Note that options already specified for the SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object
in pre-existing RFCs are not migrated to the new mechanisms described in pre-existing RFCs are not migrated to the new mechanisms described
in this documnet. in this document.
RSVP includes a way for unrecognized objects to be transparently RSVP includes a way for unrecognized objects to be transparently
forwarded by transit nodes without them refusing the incoming forwarded by transit nodes without them refusing the incoming
protocol messages and with the objects being stripped from the protocol messages and without the objects being stripped from the
outgoing protocol message (see [RFC2205] section 3.10). This outgoing protocol message (see [RFC2205] Section 3.10). This
capability extends to RSVP-TE and provides a good way to ensure that capability extends to RSVP-TE and provides a good way to ensure that
only those LSRs that understand a particular object examine it. only those LSRs that understand a particular object examine it.
This document distinguishes between options and attributes that are This document distinguishes between options and attributes that are
only required at key LSRs along the path of the LSP, and those that only required at key LSRs along the path of the LSP, and those that
must be acted on by every LSR along the LSP. Two LSP Attributes must be acted on by every LSR along the LSP. Two LSP Attributes
objects are defined in this document: the first may be passed objects are defined in this document: the first may be passed
transparently by LSRs that do not recognize it, the second must cause transparently by LSRs that do not recognize it, the second must cause
LSP setup failure with the generation of a PathErr message with an LSP setup failure with the generation of a PathErr message with an
appropriate Error Code if an LSR does not recognize it. appropriate Error Code if an LSR does not recognize it.
skipping to change at line 186 skipping to change at line 237
act on the attributes. act on the attributes.
- Support for arbitrary attributes parameters through TLVs would - Support for arbitrary attributes parameters through TLVs would
have meant a significant change of substance to the existing have meant a significant change of substance to the existing
object. object.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
This document uses terminology from the MPLS architecture document This document uses terminology from the MPLS architecture document
[RFC3031] and from the RSVP-TE protocol specification [RFC3209] which [RFC3031] and from the RSVP-TE protocol specification [RFC3209] which
inherits from the RSVP specification [RFC2205]. inherits from the RSVP specification [RFC2205]. It also makes uses of
the Generalized MPLS RSVP-TE terminology introduced in [RFC3471] and
[RFC3473].
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 RFC2119 [6]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [6].
3. Attributes TLVs 3. Attributes TLVs
Attributes carried by the new objects defined in this document are Attributes carried by the new objects defined in this document are
encoded within TLVs. One or more TLVs may be present in each object. encoded within TLVs. One or more TLVs may be present in each object.
There are no ordering rules for TLVs and no interpretation should be There are no ordering rules for TLVs and no interpretation should be
skipping to change at line 235 skipping to change at line 288
The data for the TLV padded as described above. The data for the TLV padded as described above.
3.1 Attributes Flags TLV 3.1 Attributes Flags TLV
This document defines only one TLV type value. Type 1 indicates the This document defines only one TLV type value. Type 1 indicates the
Attributes Flags TLV. Other TLV types may be defined in future with Attributes Flags TLV. Other TLV types may be defined in future with
type values assigned by IANA. type values assigned by IANA.
The Attributes Flags TLV may be present in an LSP_ATTRIBUTES object The Attributes Flags TLV may be present in an LSP_ATTRIBUTES object
and/or an LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object. The bits in the TLV and/or an LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object defined in Sections 4 and 5.
represent the same attributes regardless of which object carries the The bits in the TLV represent the same attributes regardless of which
TLV. Documents that define individual bits MUST specify whether the object carries the TLV. Documents that define individual bits MUST
bit may be set in one object or the other, or both. It is not specify whether the bit may be set in one object or the other, or
expected that a bit will be set in both objects on a single Path both. It is not expected that a bit will be set in both objects on a
message at the same time, but this is not ruled out by this document. single Path message at the same time, but this is not ruled out by
this document.
The Attributes Flags TLV value field is a variable length array of The Attributes Flags TLV value field is a variable length array of
flags numbered from the MSB as bit zero. The length field for this flags numbered from the MSB as bit zero. The length field for this
TLV is always a multiple of 4 bytes, regardless of the number bits TLV is always a multiple of 4 bytes, regardless of the number bits
carried. carried.
Unassigned bits are considered as reserved and MUST be set to zero Unassigned bits are considered as reserved and MUST be set to zero
on transmission by the originator of the object. Bits not contained in the on transmission by the originator of the object. Bits not contained
TLV MUST be assumed to be set to zero. If the TLV is absent either in the TLV MUST be assumed to be set to zero. If the TLV is absent
because it is not contained in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ either because it is not contained in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_
ATTRIBUTES object, or because those objects are themselves absent, REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object, or because those objects are themselves
all processing MUST be performed as though the bits were present absent, all processing MUST be performed as though the bits were
and set to zero. present and set to zero.
No bits are defined in this document. The assignment of bits is No bits are defined in this document. The assignment of bits is
managed by IANA. managed by IANA.
4. LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object 4. LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object
The LSP_ATTRIBUTES object is used to signal attributes required in The LSP_ATTRIBUTES object is used to signal attributes required in
support of an LSP, or to indicate the nature or use of an LSP where support of an LSP, or to indicate the nature or use of an LSP where
that information is not required to be acted on by all transit LSRs. that information is not required to be acted on by all transit LSRs.
Specifically, if an LSR does not support the object, it forwards it Specifically, if an LSR does not support the object, it forwards it
unexamined and unchanged. This facilitates the exchange of attributes unexamined and unchanged. This facilitates the exchange of attributes
across legacy networks that do not support this new object. across legacy networks that do not support this new object.
This object effectively extends the flags field in the SESSION_ This object effectively extends the flags field in the SESSION_
ATTRIBUTE object and allows for the future inclusion of more complex ATTRIBUTE object and allows for the future inclusion of more complex
objects through TLVs. objects through TLVs.
Note that some function may require an LSR to inspect both the Note that some function may require an LSR to inspect both the
SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object, and the LSP_ATTRIBUTES or SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object, and the LSP_ATTRIBUTES or
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTIBUTES object. LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object.
The LSP_ATTRIBUTES object may also be used to report LSP operational
state on a Resv even when no LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_
ATTRIBUTES object was carried on the corresponding Path message. The
object is added or updated by LSRs that support the object. LSRs that
do not understand the object or have nothing to report, do not add
the object and forward it unchanged on Resv messages that they
generate.
The LSP_ATTRIBUTES object class is TBD of the form 11bbbbbb. This The LSP_ATTRIBUTES object class is TBD of the form 11bbbbbb. This
C-Num value (see section 7) ensures that LSRs that do not recognize C-Num value (see Section 8) ensures that LSRs that do not recognize
the object pass it on transparently. the object pass it on transparently.
One C-Type is defined, C-Type = 1 for LSP Attributes. One C-Type is defined, C-Type = 1 for LSP Attributes.
This object is optional and may be placed on Path messages to convey This object is optional and may be placed on Path messages to convey
additional information about the desired attributes of the LSP. additional information about the desired attributes of the LSP, and.
on Resv messages to report operational state.
4.1 Format 4.1 Format
LSP_ATTRIBUTES class = TBD, C-Type = 1 LSP_ATTRIBUTES class = TBD, C-Type = 1
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
// Attributes TLVs // // Attributes TLVs //
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Attributes TLVs are encoded as described in section 3. The Attributes TLVs are encoded as described in Section 3.
4.2 Generic Processing Rules 4.2 Generic Processing Rules for Path Messages
An LSR that does not support this object will pass it on unaltered An LSR that does not support this object will pass it on unaltered
because of the C-Num. because of the C-Num.
An LSR that does support this object, but does not recognize a TLV An LSR that does support this object, but does not recognize a TLV
type code carried in this object MUST pass the TLV on unaltered type code carried in this object MUST pass the TLV on unaltered
in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object that it places in the Path message in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object that it places in the Path message
that it sends downstream. that it sends downstream.
An LSR that does support this object and recognizes a TLV but does An LSR that does support this object and recognizes a TLV but does
skipping to change at line 320 skipping to change at line 383
the document that defines the TLV. the document that defines the TLV.
An LSR that supports the Attributes Flags TLV, but does not An LSR that supports the Attributes Flags TLV, but does not
recognize a bit set in the Attributes Flags TLV MUST forward the recognize a bit set in the Attributes Flags TLV MUST forward the
TLV unchanged. TLV unchanged.
An LSR that supports the Attributes Flags TLV and recognizes a bit An LSR that supports the Attributes Flags TLV and recognizes a bit
that is set but does not support the indicated attribute MUST act as that is set but does not support the indicated attribute MUST act as
specified in the document that defines the bit. specified in the document that defines the bit.
4.3 Generic Processing Rules for Resv Messages
An LSR that wishes to report operational status of an LSP may include
this object in a Resv message, or update the object that is already
carried in a Resv message.
Note that this usage reports the state of the entire LSP and not the
state of the LSP at an individual LSR. This latter function is
achieved using the LSP Attributes subobject of the Record Route
object as described in Section 7.
The bits in the Attributes TLV may be used to report operational
status for the whole LSP. For example, an egress may report a
particular status by setting a bit. LSRs within the network that
determine that this status has not been achieved may clear the bit
as they forward the Resv message.
Observe that LSRs that do not support the object or do not support
the function characterized by a particular bit in the Attributes TLV
will not clear the bit when forwarding the Resv. Thus, care must be
taken in defining the usage of this object on a Resv. The usage of
an individual bit in the Attributes TLV of the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object
on a Resv must be fully defined in the document that defines the bit.
Additional TLVs may also be defined to be carried in this object on
a Resv.
An LSR that does not support this object will pass it on unaltered
because of the C-Num.
5. LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object 5. LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object
The LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object is used to signal attributes The LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object is used to signal attributes
required in support of an LSP, or to indicate the nature or use of required in support of an LSP, or to indicate the nature or use of
an LSP where that information MUST be inspected at each transit LSR. an LSP where that information MUST be inspected at each transit LSR.
Specifically, each transit LSR MUST examine the attributes in the Specifically, each transit LSR MUST examine the attributes in the
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object and MUST NOT forward the object LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object and MUST NOT forward the object
transparently. transparently.
This object effectively extends the flags field in the SESSION_ This object effectively extends the flags field in the SESSION_
ATTRIBUTE object and allows for the future inclusion of more complex ATTRIBUTE object and allows for the future inclusion of more complex
objects through TLVs. It complements the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object. objects through TLVs. It complements the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object.
The LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object class is TBD of the form 0bbbbbbb. The LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object class is TBD of the form 0bbbbbbb.
This C-Num value ensures that LSRs that do not This C-Num value ensures that LSRs that do not
recognize the object reject the LSP setup effectively saying that recognize the object reject the LSP setup effectively saying that
they do not support the attributes requested. This means that this they do not support the attributes requested. This means that this
object SHOULD only be used for attributes that require support at object SHOULD only be used for attributes that require support at
some transit LSRs and so require examination at all transit LSRs. See some transit LSRs and so require examination at all transit LSRs. See
section 4 for how end-to-end and selective attributes are signaled. Section 4 for how end-to-end and selective attributes are signaled.
One C-Type is defined, C-Type = 1 for LSP Required Attributes. One C-Type is defined, C-Type = 1 for LSP Required Attributes.
This object is optional and may be placed on Path messages to convey This object is optional and may be placed on Path messages to convey
additional information about the desired attributes of the LSP. additional information about the desired attributes of the LSP.
5.1 Format 5.1 Format
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES class = TBD, C-Type = 1 LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES class = TBD, C-Type = 1
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
// Attributes TLVs // // Attributes TLVs //
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Attributes TLVs are encoded as described in section 3. The Attributes TLVs are encoded as described in Section 3.
5.2 Generic Processing Rules 5.2 Generic Processing Rules
An LSR that does not support this object will use a PathErr to reject An LSR that does not support this object will use a PathErr to reject
the Path message based on the C-Num using the error code "Unknown the Path message based on the C-Num using the error code "Unknown
Object Class". Object Class".
An LSR that does not recognize a TLV type code carried in this object An LSR that does not recognize a TLV type code carried in this object
MUST reject the Path message using a PathErr with Error Code MUST reject the Path message using a PathErr with Error Code
"Unknown Attributes TLV" and Error Value set to the value of the "Unknown Attributes TLV" and Error Value set to the value of the
skipping to change at line 380 skipping to change at line 473
An LSR that does not recognize a bit set in the Attributes Flags An LSR that does not recognize a bit set in the Attributes Flags
TLV MUST reject the Path message using a PathErr with Error Code TLV MUST reject the Path message using a PathErr with Error Code
"Unknown Attributes Bit" and Error Value set to the bit number of "Unknown Attributes Bit" and Error Value set to the bit number of
the unknown bit in the Attributes Flags. the unknown bit in the Attributes Flags.
An LSR that recognizes an attribute, however encoded, but which does An LSR that recognizes an attribute, however encoded, but which does
not support that attribute MUST act according to the behavior not support that attribute MUST act according to the behavior
specified in the document that defines that specific attribute. specified in the document that defines that specific attribute.
6. Recording Attributes Note that this object is not used on a Resv. In order to report the
status of an LSP either the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object on a Resv or the
Attributes subobject in the Record Route object (see Section 7) must
be used.
6.1 Requirements 6. Inheritance Rules
In certain circumstances, when reaching an LSP region boundary, a
FA-LSP (see [MPLS-HIER]) is initially setup to allow the establishment
of the LSP carrying the LSP ATTRIBUTES and/or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES
objects. In this case, when the boundary LSR supports LSP_ATTRIBUTES
and LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES processing, the FA-LSP MAY upon local
policy inherit a subset of the Attributes TLVs, in particular when the
FA-LSP belongs to the same switching capability class than the
triggering LSP.
When these conditions are met, the LSP_ATTRIBUTES and/or
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES objects are simply copied with the inherited
Attributes TLVs in the Path message used to establish the FA-LSP. By
default (and in order to simplify deployment), none of the incoming
LSP Attributes TLV are considered as inheritable. Note that when the
FA-LSP establishment itself requires one or more Attributes TLVs, an
'OR' operation is performed with the inherited set of values.
Documents that define individual bits for the LSP Attributes Flags
TLV MUST specify whether these bits MAY be inherited or not (including
the condition to be met in order for this inheritance to occur). The
same applies for any other TLV that will be defined following the
rules specified in Section 3.
7. Recording Attributes Per-LSP
7.1 Requirements
In some circumstances it is useful to determine which of the In some circumstances it is useful to determine which of the
requested LSP attributes have been applied at which LSRs along the requested LSP attributes have been applied at which LSRs along the
path of the LSP. For example, an attribute may be requested in the path of the LSP. For example, an attribute may be requested in the
LSP_ATTRIBUTES object such that LSRs that do not support the object LSP_ATTRIBUTES object such that LSRs that do not support the object
are not required to support the attribute or provide the requested are not required to support the attribute or provide the requested
function. In this case, it may be useful to the ingress LSR to know function. In this case, it may be useful to the ingress LSR to know
which LSRs acted on the request and which ignored it. which LSRs acted on the request and which ignored it.
Additionally, there may be other qualities that need to be reported Additionally, there may be other qualities that need to be reported
on a hop-by-hop basis. These are currently indicated in the Flags on a hop-by-hop basis. These are currently indicated in the Flags
field of RRO subobjects. Since there are only eight bits available field of RRO subobjects. Since there are only eight bits available
in this field, and since some are already assigned and there is also in this field, and since some are already assigned and there is also
likely to be an increase in allocations in new documents, there is a likely to be an increase in allocations in new documents, there is a
need for some other method to report per-hop attributes. need for some other method to report per-hop attributes.
6.2 RRO Attributes Subobject 7.2 RRO Attributes Subobject
The RRO Attributes Subobject may be carried in the RECORD_ROUTE The RRO Attributes Subobject may be carried in the RECORD_ROUTE
object if it is present. The subobject uses the standard format of object if it is present. The subobject uses the standard format of
an RRO subobject. an RRO subobject.
The length is variable as for the Attributes Flags TLV. The content The length is variable as for the Attributes Flags TLV. The content
is the same as the Attribute Flags TLV - that is, it is a series of is the same as the Attribute Flags TLV - that is, it is a series of
bit flags. bit flags.
There is a one-to-one correspondance between bits in the Attributes There is a one-to-one correspondence between bits in the Attributes
Flags TLV and the RRO Attributes Subobject. If a bit is only required Flags TLV and the RRO Attributes Subobject. If a bit is only required
in one of the two places, it is reserved in the other place. See in one of the two places, it is reserved in the other place. See
the procedures sections, below, for more information. the procedures sections, below, for more information.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Reserved | | Type | Length | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
skipping to change at line 438 skipping to change at line 561
Length Length
The Length contains the total length of the subobject in bytes, The Length contains the total length of the subobject in bytes,
including the Type and Length fields. This length must be a including the Type and Length fields. This length must be a
multiple of 4 and must be at least 8. multiple of 4 and must be at least 8.
Attribute Flags Attribute Flags
The attribute flags recorded for the specific hop. The attribute flags recorded for the specific hop.
6.3 Procedures 7.3 Procedures
6.3.1 Subobject Presence Rules 7.3.1 Subobject Presence Rules
The Attributes subobject is pushed onto the RECORD_ROUTE object The Attributes subobject is pushed onto the RECORD_ROUTE object
immediately prior to pushing the node's IP address or link immediately prior to pushing the node's IP address or link
identifier. Thus, if label recording is being used, the Attributes identifier. Thus, if label recording is being used, the Attributes
subobject SHOULD be pushed onto the RECORD_ROUTE object after the subobject SHOULD be pushed onto the RECORD_ROUTE object after the
Record Label subobject(s). Record Label subobject(s).
A node MUST NOT push an Attributes subobject on to the RECORD_ROUTE A node MUST NOT push an Attributes subobject on to the RECORD_ROUTE
object without also pushing an IPv4, IPv6 or Unnumbered Interface ID object without also pushing an IPv4, IPv6 or Unnumbered Interface ID
subobject. subobject.
skipping to change at line 465 skipping to change at line 588
If the new subobject causes the RRO to be too big to fit in a Path If the new subobject causes the RRO to be too big to fit in a Path
(or Resv) message, the processing MUST be as described in [RFC3209]. (or Resv) message, the processing MUST be as described in [RFC3209].
If more than one Attributes subobject is found between a pair of If more than one Attributes subobject is found between a pair of
subobjects that identify LSRs, only the first one found (that is, the subobjects that identify LSRs, only the first one found (that is, the
nearest to the stop of the stack) SHALL have any meaning within the nearest to the stop of the stack) SHALL have any meaning within the
context of this document. All such subobjects MUST be forwarded context of this document. All such subobjects MUST be forwarded
unmodified by transit LSRs. unmodified by transit LSRs.
6.3.2 Reporting Compliance with LSP Attributes 7.3.2 Reporting Compliance with LSP Attributes
To report compliance with an attribute requested in the Attributes To report compliance with an attribute requested in the Attributes
Flags TLV, an LSR MAY set the corresponding bit (see section 7) in Flags TLV, an LSR MAY set the corresponding bit (see Section 8) in
the Attributes subobject. To report non-compliance, an LSR MAY clear the Attributes subobject. To report non-compliance, an LSR MAY clear
the corresponding bit in the Attributes subobject. the corresponding bit in the Attributes subobject.
The requirement to report compliance MUST be specified in the The requirement to report compliance MUST be specified in the
document that defines the usage of any bit. This will reduce to a document that defines the usage of any bit. This will reduce to a
statement of whether hop-by-hop acknowledgement is required. statement of whether hop-by-hop acknowledgement is required.
6.3.3 Reporting Per-Hop Attributes 7.3.3 Reporting Per-Hop Attributes
To report a per-hop attribute, an LSR sets the appropriate bit in the To report a per-hop attribute, an LSR sets the appropriate bit in the
Attributes subobject. Attributes subobject.
The requirement to report a per-hop attribute MUST be specified in The requirement to report a per-hop attribute MUST be specified in
the document that defines the usage of the bit. the document that defines the usage of the bit.
6.3.4 Default Behavior 7.3.4 Default Behavior
By default all bits in an Attibutes subobject SHOULD be set to zero. By default all bits in an Attributes subobject SHOULD be set to zero.
If a received Attribute subobject is not long enough to include a If a received Attribute subobject is not long enough to include a
specific numbered bit, that bit MUST be treated as though present and specific numbered bit, that bit MUST be treated as though present and
as if set to zero. as if set to zero.
If the RRO subobject is not present for a hop in the LSP, all bits If the RRO subobject is not present for a hop in the LSP, all bits
MUST be assumed to be set to zero. MUST be assumed to be set to zero.
7. Summary of Attribute Bit Allocation 8. Summary of Attribute Bit Allocation
This document defines two uses of per-LSP attribute flag bit fields. This document defines two uses of per-LSP attribute flag bit fields.
The bit numbering in the Attributes Flags TLV and the RRO Attributes The bit numbering in the Attributes Flags TLV and the RRO Attributes
subobject is identical. That is, the same attribute is indicated by subobject is identical. That is, the same attribute is indicated by
the same bit in both places. This means that only a single registry the same bit in both places. This means that only a single registry
of bits is maintained. of bits is maintained.
The consequence is a degree of clarity in implementation and The consequence is a degree of clarity in implementation and
registration. registration.
skipping to change at line 521 skipping to change at line 644
requirement to report the attributes of an LSP on a hop-by-hop basis, requirement to report the attributes of an LSP on a hop-by-hop basis,
but there is no corresponding request attribute. but there is no corresponding request attribute.
In these cases, a single bit number is still assigned for both the In these cases, a single bit number is still assigned for both the
Attributes Flags TLV and the RRO Attributes subobject even though the Attributes Flags TLV and the RRO Attributes subobject even though the
bit may be irrelevant in either the Attributes Flags or the RRO bit may be irrelevant in either the Attributes Flags or the RRO
Attributes subobject. The document that defines the usage of the new Attributes subobject. The document that defines the usage of the new
bit MUST state in which places it is used and MUST handle a default bit MUST state in which places it is used and MUST handle a default
setting of zero. setting of zero.
8. Message Formats 9. Message Formats
The LSP_ATTRIBUTES object and the LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object MAY The LSP_ATTRIBUTES object and the LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object MAY
be carried in a Path message. be carried in a Path message. The LSP_ATTRIBUTES object MAY be
carried in a Resv message.
The order of objects in RSVP-TE messages is recommended, but The order of objects in RSVP-TE messages is recommended, but
implementations must be capable of receiving the objects in any implementations must be capable of receiving the objects in any
meaningful order. The LSP_ATTRIBUTES object and LSP_REQUIRED_ meaningful order.
On a Path message, the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object and LSP_REQUIRED_
ATTRIBUTES objects are RECOMMENDED to be placed immediately after the ATTRIBUTES objects are RECOMMENDED to be placed immediately after the
SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object if it is present, or otherwise immediately SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object if it is present, or otherwise immediately
after the LABEL_REQUEST object. after the LABEL_REQUEST object.
If both the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object and the LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES If both the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object and the LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES
object are present, the LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object is RECOMMENDED object are present, the LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object is RECOMMENDED
to be placed first. to be placed first.
LSRs SHOULD be prepared to receive these objects in any order in any LSRs SHOULD be prepared to receive these objects in any order in any
position within a Path message. Subsequent instances of these objects position within a Path message. Subsequent instances of these objects
within a Path message SHOULD be ignored and those objects MUST be within a Path message SHOULD be ignored and those objects MUST be
forwarded unchanged transparently. forwarded unchanged.
9. IANA Considerations On a Resv message, the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object is placed in the flow
descriptor and is associated with the FILTER_SPEC object that
precedes it. It is RECOMMENDED that the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object be
placed immediately after the LABEL object.
9.1 New RSVP C-Nums and C-Types LSRs SHOULD be prepared to receive this object in any order in any
position within a Resv message subject to the previous note. Only
one instance of the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object is meaningful within the
context of a FILTER_SPEC object. Subsequent instances of the object
SHOULD be ignored and MUST be forwarded unchanged.
10. IANA Considerations
10.1 New RSVP C-Nums and C-Types
Two new RSVP C-Nums are defined in this document and should be Two new RSVP C-Nums are defined in this document and should be
assigned by IANA. assigned by IANA.
o LSP_ATTRIBUTES object o LSP_ATTRIBUTES object
The C-Num should be of the form 11bbbbbb so that LSRs that do not The C-Num should be of the form 11bbbbbb so that LSRs that do not
recognize the object will ignore the object but forward it, recognize the object will ignore the object but forward it,
unexamined and unmodified, in all messages resulting from this unexamined and unmodified, in all messages resulting from this
message. message.
skipping to change at line 576 skipping to change at line 713
recognize the object will reject the message that carries it with recognize the object will reject the message that carries it with
an "Unknown Object Class" error. an "Unknown Object Class" error.
One C-Type is defined for this object and should be assigned by One C-Type is defined for this object and should be assigned by
IANA. IANA.
o LSP Required Attributes TLVs o LSP Required Attributes TLVs
Recommended C-Type value 1. Recommended C-Type value 1.
9.2 New TLV Space 10.2 New TLV Space
The two new objects referenced above are constructed from TLVs. Each The two new objects referenced above are constructed from TLVs. Each
TLV includes a 16-bit type identifier (the T-field). The same T-field TLV includes a 16-bit type identifier (the T-field). The same T-field
values are applicable to both objects. values are applicable to both objects.
IANA is requested to manage TLV type identifiers as follows: IANA is requested to manage TLV type identifiers as follows:
- TLV Type (T-field value) - TLV Type (T-field value)
- TLV Name - TLV Name
- Whether allowed on LSP_ATTRIBUTES object - Whether allowed on LSP_ATTRIBUTES object
- Whether allowed on LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object. - Whether allowed on LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object.
This document defines one TLV type as follows: This document defines one TLV type as follows:
- TLV Type = 1 - TLV Type = 1
- TLV Name = Attributes Flags TLV - TLV Name = Attributes Flags TLV
- allowed on LSP_ATTRIBUTES object - allowed on LSP_ATTRIBUTES object
- allowed on LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object. - allowed on LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object.
9.3 Attributes Flags 10.3 Attributes Flags
This document provides new attributes bit flags for use in other This document provides new attributes bit flags for use in other
documents that specify new RSVP-TE attributes. These flags are documents that specify new RSVP-TE attributes. These flags are
present in the Attributes Flags TLV referenced in the previous present in the Attributes Flags TLV referenced in the previous
section. section.
IANA is requested to manage the space of attributes bit flags IANA is requested to manage the space of attributes bit flags
numbering them in the usual IETF notation starting at zero and numbering them in the usual IETF notation starting at zero and
continuing through 2039. continuing through 2039.
Each bit should be tracked with the following qualities: Each bit should be tracked with the following qualities:
- Bit number - Bit number
- Defining RFC - Defining RFC
- Name of bit - Name of bit
- Whether there is meaning in the Attibute Flags TLV (yes/no) - Whether there is meaning in the Attribute Flags TLV on a Path
- Whether there is meaning in the RRO Attributes Subobject (yes/no). - Whether there is meaning in the Attribute Flags TLV on a Resv
- Whether there is meaning in the RRO Attributes Subobject.
Note that this means that all bits in the Attribute Flags TLV and the Note that this means that all bits in the Attribute Flags TLV and the
RRO Attributes Subobject use the same bit number regardless of RRO Attributes Subobject use the same bit number regardless of
whether they are used in one or both places. Thus, only one list of whether they are used in one or both places. Thus, only one list of
bits is required to be maintained. (It would be meaningless in the bits is required to be maintained. (It would be meaningless in the
context of this document for a bit to have no meaning in neither the context of this document for a bit to have no meaning in neither the
Attribute Flags TLV nor the RRO Attributes Subobject.) Attribute Flags TLV nor the RRO Attributes Subobject.)
9.4 SESSION_ATTRIBUTE Flags Field 10.4 SESSION_ATTRIBUTE Flags Field
This document does not make any alterations to the definition of the This document does not make any alterations to the definition of the
existing SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object nor to the definition of meanings existing SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object nor to the definition of meanings
assigned to the flags in the Flags field of that object. These flags assigned to the flags in the Flags field of that object. These flags
are assigned meanings in various other RFCs and Internet Drafts. are assigned meanings in various other RFCs and Internet Drafts.
It is suggested that IANA manage the allocation of meaning to the It is suggested that IANA manage the allocation of meaning to the
bits in the Flags field of the SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object to prevent bits in the Flags field of the SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object to prevent
accidental double allocation of any one bit. accidental double allocation of any one bit.
9.5 New Error Codes 10.5 New Error Codes
This document defines the following new error codes and error values. This document defines the following new error codes and error values.
Numeric values should be assigned by IANA. Numeric values should be assigned by IANA.
Error Code Error Value Error Code Error Value
"Unknown Attributes TLV" Identifies the unknown TLV type code. "Unknown Attributes TLV" Identifies the unknown TLV type code.
"Unknown Attributes Bit" Identifies the unknown Attribute Bit. "Unknown Attributes Bit" Identifies the unknown Attribute Bit.
9.6 New Record Route Subobject Identifier 10.6 New Record Route Subobject Identifier
A new subobject is defined for inclusion in the RECORD_ROUTE object. A new subobject is defined for inclusion in the RECORD_ROUTE object.
The RRO Attributes subobject is identified by a Type value of TBD. The RRO Attributes subobject is identified by a Type value of TBD.
10. Security Considerations 11. Security Considerations
This document adds two new objects to the RSVP Path message as used This document adds two new objects to the RSVP Path message as used
in MPLS and GMPLS signaling, and a new subobject to the RECORD_ROUTE in MPLS and GMPLS signaling, and a new subobject to the RECORD_ROUTE
object carried on may RSVP messages. It does not introduce any new object carried on may RSVP messages. It does not introduce any new
direct security issues and the reader is referred to the security direct security issues and the reader is referred to the security
considerations expressed in [RFC2205], [RFC3209] and [RFC3473]. considerations expressed in [RFC2205], [RFC3209] and [RFC3473].
It is of passing note that any signaling request that indicates the It is of passing note that any signaling request that indicates the
functional preferences or attributes of an MPLS LSP may provide functional preferences or attributes of an MPLS LSP may provide
anyone with unauthorized access to the contents of the message with anyone with unauthorized access to the contents of the message with
skipping to change at line 671 skipping to change at line 809
signaling message. signaling message.
Similarly, the addition of attribute recording information to the Similarly, the addition of attribute recording information to the
RRO may reveal information about the status of the LSP and the RRO may reveal information about the status of the LSP and the
capabilities of individual LSRs that operators wish to keep secret. capabilities of individual LSRs that operators wish to keep secret.
The same strategy that applies to other RRO subobjects also applies The same strategy that applies to other RRO subobjects also applies
here. Note, however, that there is a tension between notifying the here. Note, however, that there is a tension between notifying the
head end of the LSP status at transit LSRs, and hiding the existence head end of the LSP status at transit LSRs, and hiding the existence
or identity of the transit LSRs. or identity of the transit LSRs.
11. Acknowledgements 12. Acknowledgements
Credit to the OSPF Working Group for inspiration from their solution Credit to the OSPF Working Group for inspiration from their solution
to a similar problem. to a similar problem.
Thanks to Rahul Aggarwal for his careful review and support of this Thanks to Rahul Aggarwal for his careful review and support of this
work. Thanks also to Raymond Zhang, Kireeti Kompella, Philip Matthews work. Thanks also to Raymond Zhang, Kireeti Kompella, Philip Matthews,
and Jim Gibson for their input. Jim Gibson and Alan Kullberg for their input.
12. Intellectual Property Consideration 13. Intellectual Property Consideration
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
of any intellectual property or other rights that might be Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed
claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology
technology described in this document or the extent to described in this document or the extent to which any license
which any license under such rights might or might not be under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it
available; neither does it represent that it has made any represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any
effort to identify any such rights. Information on the such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
and standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11.
Copies of claims of rights made available for publication
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
implementors or users of this specification can be obtained
from the IETF Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
other proprietary rights which may cover technology that may attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use
be required to practice this standard. Please address the of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
information to the IETF Executive Director. specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository
at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
13. Normative References 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.
13.1 IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement
By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
RFC 3668.
14. 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.
[RFC2205] Braden, R. (Ed.), Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S. [RFC2205] Braden, R. (Ed.), Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S.
and S. Jamin, "Resource ReserVation Protocol -- and S. Jamin, "Resource ReserVation Protocol --
Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205, Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205,
September 1997. September 1997.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T.,
Srinivasan, V. and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions Srinivasan, V. and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions
to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC3471] Berger, L. (Editor), "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label [RFC3471] Berger, L. (Editor), "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description",
RFC 3471, January 2003. RFC 3471, January 2003.
[RFC3473] Berger, L. (Editor), "Generalized MPLS Signaling - [RFC3473] Berger, L. (Editor), "Generalized MPLS Signaling -
RSVP-TE Extensions", RFC 3473 January 2003. RSVP-TE Extensions", RFC 3473 January 2003.
14. Informative References [RFC3667] Bradner, S., "IETF Rights in Contributions", BCP 78,
RFC 3667, February 2004.
[RFC3668] Bradner, S., Ed., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3668, February 2004.
15. Informative References
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process
-- Revision 3", RFC 2026, October 1996. -- Revision 3", RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and Callon, R., [RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and Callon, R.,
"Multiprotocol Label Switching "Multiprotocol Label Switching
Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001. Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001.
[INTER-AS] Vasseur, JP., Zhang, R., "Inter-AS MPLS Traffic [INTER-AS] Vasseur, JP., Zhang, R., "Inter-AS MPLS Traffic
Engineering", <draft-vasseur-inter-as-te-03.txt>, Engineering", <draft-vasseur-inter-as-te-03.txt>,
skipping to change at line 752 skipping to change at line 903
[OSPF-CAPS] Lindem, A., Shen, N., Aggarwal, R., Shaffer, S., [OSPF-CAPS] Lindem, A., Shen, N., Aggarwal, R., Shaffer, S.,
Vasseur, JP., "Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Vasseur, JP., "Extensions to OSPF for Advertising
Optional Router Capabilities", <draft-ietf-ospf-cap- Optional Router Capabilities", <draft-ietf-ospf-cap-
00.txt>, Internet Draft, work in progress. 00.txt>, Internet Draft, work in progress.
[REOPT] Vasseur, JP., Ikejiri, Y., "Reoptimization of MPLS [REOPT] Vasseur, JP., Ikejiri, Y., "Reoptimization of MPLS
Traffic Engineering loosely routed explicit LSP path", Traffic Engineering loosely routed explicit LSP path",
<draft-vasseur-mpls-loose-path-reopt-02.txt>, Internet <draft-vasseur-mpls-loose-path-reopt-02.txt>, Internet
Draft, work in progress. Draft, work in progress.
15. Authors' Addresses [MPLS-HIER] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "LSP Hierarchy with
MPLS TE", Work in Progress.
16. Authors' Addresses
Adrian Farrel Adrian Farrel
Old Dog Consulting Old Dog Consulting
Phone: +44 (0) 1978 860944 Phone: +44 (0) 1978 860944
EMail: adrian@olddog.co.uk EMail: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel) Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel)
Fr. Wellesplein 1, Fr. Wellesplein 1,
B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
Phone: +32 3 240-8491 Phone: +32 3 240-8491
skipping to change at line 779 skipping to change at line 933
USA USA
EMail: jpv@cisco.com EMail: jpv@cisco.com
Arthi Ayyangar Arthi Ayyangar
Juniper Networks, Inc. Juniper Networks, Inc.
1194 N.Mathilda Ave 1194 N.Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94089 Sunnyvale, CA 94089
USA USA
EMail: arthi@juniper.net EMail: arthi@juniper.net
16. Full Copyright Statement 17. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights
Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is
furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP
or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their
be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or rights.
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 This document and the information contained herein are provided
will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
successors or assigns. This document and the information REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND
contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES,
INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT
DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR
NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE.
 End of changes. 

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