draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers-03.txt		draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers-04.txt
	MPLS Working Group M. Bocci		MPLS Working Group M. Bocci
	Internet-Draft Alcatel-Lucent		Internet-Draft Alcatel-Lucent
	Intended status: Standards Track G. Swallow		Intended status: Standards Track G. Swallow
	Expires: April 28, 2011 Cisco		Expires: September 4, 2011 Cisco
	E. Gray		E. Gray
	Ericsson		Ericsson
	October 25, 2010		March 3, 2011
	MPLS-TP Identifiers		MPLS-TP Identifiers
	draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers-03		draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers-04
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document specifies identifiers for MPLS-TP objects. Included		This document specifies identifiers for MPLS-TP objects. Included
	are identifiers conformant to existing ITU conventions and		are identifiers conformant to existing ITU conventions and
	identifiers which are compatible with existing IP, MPLS, GMPLS, and		identifiers which are compatible with existing IP, MPLS, GMPLS, and
	Pseudowire definitions.		Pseudowire definitions.
	Status of this Memo		Status of this Memo
	skipping to change at page 1, line 36		skipping to change at page 1, line 36
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	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		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on April 28, 2011.		This Internet-Draft will expire on September 4, 2011.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect		carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
	to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must		to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of		include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
	skipping to change at page 2, line 21		skipping to change at page 2, line 21
	1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	1.3. Notational Conventions in Backus-Naur Form . . . . . . . . 4		1.3. Notational Conventions in Backus-Naur Form . . . . . . . . 4
	2. Named Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2. Named Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	3. Uniquely Identifying an Operator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		3. Uniquely Identifying an Operator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	3.1. The Global ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		3.1. The Global ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	3.2. ITU Carrier Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		3.2. ITU Carrier Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	4. Node and Interface Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		4. Node and Interface Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	5. MPLS-TP Tunnel and LSP Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		5. MPLS-TP Tunnel and LSP Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	5.1. MPLS-TP Point to Point Tunnel Identifiers . . . . . . . . 8		5.1. MPLS-TP Point to Point Tunnel Identifiers . . . . . . . . 8
	5.2. MPLS-TP LSP Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		5.2. MPLS-TP LSP Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	5.3. Mapping to GMPLS Signalling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		5.2.1. MPLS-TP Co-Routed Bidirectional LSP Identifiers . . . 8
	6. Pseudowire Path Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		5.2.2. MPLS-TP Associated Bidirectional LSP Identifiers . . . 9
	7. Maintenance Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		5.3. Mapping to GMPLS and RSVP-TE Signalling . . . . . . . . . 9
	7.1. Maintenance Entity Group Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . 10		6. Pseudowire Path Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	7.1.1. ICC-based MEG Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		7. Maintenance Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	7.1.2. IP Compatible MEG_IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		7.1. Maintenance Entity Group Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	7.1.2.1. MPLS-TP LSP MEG_IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		7.1.1. ICC-based MEG Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	7.1.2.2. Pseudowire MEG_IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		7.1.2. IP Compatible MEG_IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	7.2. MEP_IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		7.1.2.1. MPLS-TP LSP MEG_IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	7.2.1. ICC-based MEP Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		7.1.2.2. Pseudowire MEG_IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	7.2.2. IP based MEP_IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		7.2. MEP_IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	7.2.2.1. MPLS-TP LSP_MEP_ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		7.2.1. ICC-based MEP Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	7.2.2.2. MEP_IDs for Pseudowires . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		7.2.2. IP based MEP_IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	7.2.2.3. Endpoint IDs Pseudowire Segments . . . . . . . . . 12		7.2.2.1. MPLS-TP LSP_MEP_ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	7.3. MIP Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		7.2.2.2. MEP_IDs for Pseudowires . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		7.2.2.3. Pseudowire Segments Endpoint IDs . . . . . . . . . 13
	9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		7.3. MIP Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
			10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
			Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	This document specifies identifiers to be used in within the		This document specifies identifiers to be used in within the
	Transport Profile of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS-TP). The		Transport Profile of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS-TP). The
	MPLS-TP requirements (RFC 5654) [12] require that the elements and		MPLS-TP requirements (RFC 5654) [7] require that the elements and
	objects in an MPLS-TP environment are able to be configured and		objects in an MPLS-TP environment are able to be configured and
	managed without a control plane. In such an environment many		managed without a control plane. In such an environment many
	conventions for defining identifiers are possible. This document		conventions for defining identifiers are possible. This document
	defines identifiers for MPLS-TP management and OAM functions suitable		defines identifiers for MPLS-TP management and OAM functions suitable
	to ITU conventions and to IP/MPLS conventions. Applicability of the		to ITU conventions and to IP/MPLS conventions. Applicability of the
	different identifier schemas to different applications are outside		different identifier schemas to different applications is outside the
	the scope of this document.		scope of this document.
	1.1. Terminology		1.1. Terminology
	AII: Attachment Interface Identifier		AII: Attachment Interface Identifier
	AP: Attachment Point
	ASN: Autonomous System Number		ASN: Autonomous System Number
	FEC: Forwarding Equivalence Class		FEC: Forwarding Equivalence Class
	GMPLS: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching		GMPLS: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
	ICC: ITU Carrier Code		ICC: ITU Carrier Code
	LSP: Label Switched Path		LSP: Label Switched Path
	skipping to change at page 3, line 46		skipping to change at page 3, line 44
	ME: Maintenance Entity		ME: Maintenance Entity
	MEG: Maintenance Entity Group		MEG: Maintenance Entity Group
	MEP: Maintenance Entity Group End Point		MEP: Maintenance Entity Group End Point
	MIP: Maintenance Entity Group Intermediate Point		MIP: Maintenance Entity Group Intermediate Point
	MPLS: Multi-Protocol Label Switching		MPLS: Multi-Protocol Label Switching
			NNI: Network-to-Network Interface
	OAM: Operations, Administration and Maintenance		OAM: Operations, Administration and Maintenance
	P2MP: Point to Multi-Point		P2MP: Point to Multi-Point
	P2P: Point to Point		P2P: Point to Point
	PW: Pseudowire		PW: Pseudowire
	RSVP: Resource Reservation Protocol		RSVP: Resource Reservation Protocol
	RSVP-TE: RSVP Traffic Engineering		RSVP-TE: RSVP Traffic Engineering
	skipping to change at page 4, line 27		skipping to change at page 4, line 27
	1.3. Notational Conventions in Backus-Naur Form		1.3. Notational Conventions in Backus-Naur Form
	All multiple-word atomic identifiers use underscores (_) between the		All multiple-word atomic identifiers use underscores (_) between the
	words to join the words. Many of the identifiers are composed of a		words to join the words. Many of the identifiers are composed of a
	concatenation of other identifiers. These are expressed using		concatenation of other identifiers. These are expressed using
	Backus-Naur Form (using double-colon - "::" - notation).		Backus-Naur Form (using double-colon - "::" - notation).
	Where the same identifier type is used multiple times in a		Where the same identifier type is used multiple times in a
	concatenation, they are qualified by a prefix joined to the		concatenation, they are qualified by a prefix joined to the
	identifier by a dash (-). For example Src-Node_ID is the Node_ID of		identifier by a dash (-). For example East-Node_ID is the Node_ID of
	a node referred to as Src (where "Src" is short for "source" in this		a node referred to as East.
	example).
	The notation does not define an implicit ordering of the information
	elements involved in a concatenated identifier.
	2. Named Entities		2. Named Entities
	In order to configure, operate and manage a transport network based		In order to configure, operate and manage a transport network based
	on the MPLS Transport Profile, a number of entities require		on the MPLS Transport Profile, a number of entities require
	identification. Identifiers for the follow entities are defined in		identification. Identifiers for the follow entities are defined in
	this document:		this document:
	o Operator		o Operator
	skipping to change at page 5, line 4		skipping to change at page 4, line 46
	o Operator		o Operator
	* Global_ID		* Global_ID
	* ICC		* ICC
	o LSR		o LSR
	o LSP		o LSP
	o PW		o PW
	o Interface		o Interface
	o MEG		o MEG
	o MEP		o MEP
	o MIP		o MIP
	o Tunnel		o Tunnel
	Note that we have borrowed the term tunnel from RSVP-TE (RFC 3209)		Note that we have borrowed the term tunnel from RSVP-TE (RFC 3209)
	[2] where it is used to describe an entity that provides a connection		[2] where it is used to describe an entity that provides a logical
	between a source and destination LSR. The tunnel in turn is		association between a source and destination LSR. The tunnel in turn
	instantiated by one or more LSPs, where the additional LSPs are used		is instantiated by one or more LSPs, where the additional LSPs are
	for protection or re-grooming of the tunnel.		used for protection or re-grooming of the tunnel.
	3. Uniquely Identifying an Operator		3. Uniquely Identifying an Operator
	Two forms of identification are defined, one that is compatible with		An operator is uniquely identified by an Operator Identifier
	IP operational practice called a Global_ID and one compatible with		(Opr_ID). Two formats are defined, one that is compatible with IP
	ITU practice, the ICC. An Operator MAY be identified either by		operational practice called a Global_ID and or one compatible with
	Global_ID or by ICC.		ITU practice, the ICC. An The Opr_ID MAY use either the Global_ID or
			ICC format.
	3.1. The Global ID		3.1. The Global ID
	RFC 5003 [3] defines a globally unique Attachment Interface		RFC 5003 [3] defines a globally unique Attachment Interface
	Identifier (AII). That AII is composed of three parts, a Global_ID		Identifier (AII). That AII is composed of three parts, a Global_ID
	which uniquely identifies a operator, a prefix, and finally and		which uniquely identifies a operator, a prefix, and finally and
	attachment circuit identifier. We have chosen to use that Global ID		attachment circuit identifier. We have chosen to use that Global ID
	for MPLS-TP. Quoting from RFC 5003, section 3.2, "The global ID can		for MPLS-TP. Quoting from RFC 5003, section 3.2, "The global ID can
	contain the 2-octet or 4-octet value of the operator's Autonomous		contain the 2-octet or 4-octet value of the operator's Autonomous
	System Number (ASN). It is expected that the global ID will be		System Number (ASN). It is expected that the global ID will be
	derived from the globally unique ASN of the autonomous system hosting		derived from the globally unique ASN of the autonomous system hosting
	the PEs containing the actual AIIs. The presence of a global ID		the PEs containing the actual AIIs. The presence of a global ID
	based on the operator's ASN ensures that the AII will be globally		based on the operator's ASN ensures that the AII will be globally
	unique."		unique."
	When the Global_ID is derived from a 2-octet AS number, the two high-		When the Global_ID is derived from a 2-octet AS number, the two high-
	order octets of this 4-octet identifier MUST be set to zero.		order octets of this 4-octet identifier MUST be set to zero. Further
			ASN 0 is reserved. A Global_ID of zero means that no Global_ID is
			present. Note that a Global_ID of zero is limited to entities
			contained within a single operator and MUST NOT be used across an
			NNI. A non-zero Global_ID MUST be derived from an ASN owned by the
			operator.
	Note that this Global_ID is used solely to provide a globally unique		Note that this Global_ID is used solely to provide a globally unique
	context for other MPLS-TP identifiers. It has nothing to do with the		context for other MPLS-TP identifiers. It has nothing to do with the
	use of the ASN in protocols such as BGP.		use of the ASN in protocols such as BGP.
	3.2. ITU Carrier Code		3.2. ITU Carrier Code
	M.1400 defines the ITU Carrier Code (ICC) assigned to a network		M.1400 defines the ITU Carrier Code (ICC) assigned to a network
	operator/service provider and maintained by the ITU-T		operator/service provider and maintained by the ITU-T
	Telecommunication Standardization Bureau (TSB): www.itu.int/ITU-T/		Telecommunication Standardization Bureau (TSB): www.itu.int/ITU-T/
	skipping to change at page 6, line 24		skipping to change at page 6, line 24
	kinds.		kinds.
	The ICC is a string of one to six characters, each character being		The ICC is a string of one to six characters, each character being
	either alphabetic (i.e. A-Z) or numeric (i.e. 0-9) characters.		either alphabetic (i.e. A-Z) or numeric (i.e. 0-9) characters.
	Alphabetic characters in the ICC SHOULD be represented with upper		Alphabetic characters in the ICC SHOULD be represented with upper
	case letters.		case letters.
	4. Node and Interface Identifiers		4. Node and Interface Identifiers
	An LSR requires identification of the node itself and of its		An LSR requires identification of the node itself and of its
	interfaces. An interface is the Access Point (AP) to a server layer		interfaces. An interface is the attachment point to a server layer
	MPLS-TP section or MPLS-TP tunnel.		MPLS-TP section or MPLS-TP tunnel.
	We call the identifier associated with a node a Node Identifier		We call the identifier associated with a node a Node Identifier
	(Node_ID). The Node_ID is a unique 32-bit value assigned by the		(Node_ID). The Node_ID is a unique 32-bit value assigned by the
	operator within the scope of the Global_ID. The value zero is		operator within the scope of the Global_ID. The structure of the
	reserved and MUST NOT be used. Where IPv4 addresses are used, it is		Node_ID is operator specific and is outside the scope of this
	convenient to use the Node's IPv4 loopback address as the Node_ID,		document. However, the value zero is reserved and MUST NOT be used.
	however the Node_ID does not need to have any association with the		Where IPv4 addresses are used, it may be convenient to use the Node's
	IPv4 address space used in the operator's IGP or BGP. Where IPv6		IPv4 loopback address as the Node_ID, however the Node_ID does not
	addresses are used exclusively, a domain unique 32- bit value is		need to have any association with the IPv4 address space used in the
	assigned		operator's IGP or BGP. Where IPv6 addresses are used exclusively, a
			32-bit value unique within the scope of the Global_ID is assigned.
			A LSR can support multiple layers (e.g. hierarchical LSPs) and the
			Node_ID belongs to the multiple layer context i.e. it is applicable
			to all LSPs or PWs that originate on, have a midpoint on, or
			terminate on the node.
	In situations where a Node_ID needs to be globally unique, this is		In situations where a Node_ID needs to be globally unique, this is
	accomplished by prefixing the identifier with the operator's		accomplished by prefixing the identifier with the operator's Opr_ID.
	Global_ID. The combination of Global_ID::Node_ID we call an Global		The particular combination of Global_ID::Node_ID we call a Global
	Node ID or Global_Node_ID.		Node ID or Global_Node_ID.
	Within the context of a particular node, we call the identifier		Within the context of a particular node, we call the identifier
	associated with an interface an Interface Number or IF_Num. The		associated with an interface an Interface Number or IF_Num. The
	IF_Num is a 32-bit unsigned integer assigned by the operator and MUST		IF_Num is a 32-bit unsigned integer assigned by the operator and MUST
	be unique within the scope of a Node_ID. The IF_Num value 0 has		be unique within the scope of a Node_ID. The IF_Num value 0 has
	special meaning and MUST NOT be used as the IF_Num in an MPLS-TP		special meaning (see section , MIP Identifiers) (Section 7.3) and
	IF_ID.		MUST NOT be used to identify an MPLS-TP interface.
	An Interface Identifier or IF_ID identifies an interface uniquely		An Interface Identifier or IF_ID identifies an interface uniquely
	within the context of a Global_ID. It is formed by concatenating the		within the context of an Opr_ID. It is formed by concatenating the
	Node_ID with the IF_Num. That is an IF_ID is a 64-bit identifier		Node_ID with the IF_Num. That is an IF_ID is a 64-bit identifier
	formed as Node_ID::IF_Num.		formed as Node_ID::IF_Num.
	This convention was chosen to allow compatibility with GMPLS. GMPLS		This convention was chosen to allow compatibility with GMPLS. GMPLS
	signaling [4] requires interface identification. GMPLS allows three		signaling [4] requires interface identification. GMPLS allows three
	formats for the Interface_ID. The third format consists of an IPv4		formats for the Interface_ID. The third format consists of an IPv4
	Address plus a 32-bit unsigned integer for the specific interface.		Address plus a 32-bit unsigned integer for the specific interface.
	The format defined for MPLS-TP is consistent with this format, but		The format defined for MPLS-TP is consistent with this format, but
	uses the Node_ID instead of an IPv4 Address.		uses the Node_ID instead of an IPv4 Address.
	An IF_ID needs to be globally unique, this is accomplished by		If an IF_ID needs to be globally unique, this is accomplished by
	prefixing the identifier with the operator's Global_ID. The		prefixing the identifier with the operator's Opr_ID.
	combination of Global_ID::Node_ID::IF_Num we call an Global Interface
	ID or Global_IF_ID.
	The attachment point to an MPLS-TP Tunnel (see section Section 5.1		The attachment point to an MPLS-TP Tunnel (see section Section 5.1
	also needs an interface identifier. A procedure for automatically		also needs an interface identifier. Note that MPLS-TP supports
	generating these is contained in that section.		hierarchical tunnels. The attachment point to a MPLS-TP Tunnel at
			any sub layer requires a unique IF_ID.
	5. MPLS-TP Tunnel and LSP Identifiers		5. MPLS-TP Tunnel and LSP Identifiers
	An important construct within MPLS_TP is a service that may be		In MPLS the actual transport of packets is provided by label switched
	identified by the server to a client, ideally using a single		paths (LSPs). A transport service may be composed of multiple LSPs.
	identifier. Such a service may be provided across a working and a		Further the LSPs providing a service may change over time due to
	protection LSP, both of which should be similarly identified. Within		protection and restoration events. In order to clearly identify the
	this document we will use the term "MPLS-TP Tunnel" or simply		service we use the term "MPLS-TP Tunnel" or simply "tunnel" for a
	"tunnel" for a service provided by (for example) a working and		service provided by (for example) a working LSP and protected by a
	protection LSPs. This section defines an MPLS-TP Tunnel_ID to		protection LSP. The Tunnel_ID identifies the transport service and
			provides a stable binding to the client in the face of changes in the
			the data plane LSPs used to provide the service due to protection and
			restoration events. This section defines an MPLS-TP Tunnel_ID to
	uniquely identify a tunnel and MPLS-TP LSP_IDs within the context of		uniquely identify a tunnel and MPLS-TP LSP_IDs within the context of
	that tunnel.		that tunnel.
	For the case where multiple LSPs (for example) are used to support a		For the case where multiple LSPs (for example) are used to support a
	single service with a common set of end-points, using this identifier		single service with a common set of end-points, using this identifier
	allows for a trivial mapping between the server and client layers to		allows for a trivial mapping between the server and client layers to
	a common service identifier which may be either defined by, or used		a common service identifier which may be either defined by, or used
	by, the client.		by, the client.
	Note that this usage is not intended to constrain protection schemes,		Note that this usage is not intended to constrain protection schemes,
	skipping to change at page 8, line 10		skipping to change at page 8, line 15
	Keeping the tunnel number consistent across working and protection		Keeping the tunnel number consistent across working and protection
	LSPs is a useful construct currently employed within GMPLS. However		LSPs is a useful construct currently employed within GMPLS. However
	there is no requirement that a protection LSP use the same tunnel		there is no requirement that a protection LSP use the same tunnel
	number as the working LSP.		number as the working LSP.
	5.1. MPLS-TP Point to Point Tunnel Identifiers		5.1. MPLS-TP Point to Point Tunnel Identifiers
	At each endpoint a tunnel is uniquely identified by the endpoint's		At each endpoint a tunnel is uniquely identified by the endpoint's
	Node_ID and a locally assigned tunnel number. Specifically a		Node_ID and a locally assigned tunnel number. Specifically a
	Tunnel_Num is a 16-bit unsigned integer unique within the context of		Tunnel_Num is a 16-bit unsigned integer unique within the context of
	the node. The motivation for each endpoint having its own tunnel		the Node_ID. The motivation for each endpoint having its own tunnel
	number is to allow a compact form for the MEP-ID. See section		number is to allow a compact form for the MEP-ID. See section
	Section 7.1.2.1.		Section 7.1.2.1.
	Having two tunnel-ids also serves to simplify other signaling. For		Having two tunnel numbers also serves to simplify other signaling
	instance an associated bi-directional tunnel could be setup using two		(e.g., setup of associated bi-directional tunnels as described in
	unidirectional tunnels signaled via RSVP.		section Section 5.3.)
	The concatenation of the two endpoint identifiers serves as the full		The concatenation of the two endpoint identifiers serves as the full
	identifier. In a signaled situation, the node originating the		identifier. In a configured environment the endpoints are often
	signaling exchange is called the source and the target node is called		called East and West. Using this convention the format of the format
	the destination. In a configured environment the endpoints could		of a Tunnel_ID is:
	equally be called East and West. Using the signaled convention and
	abbreviating the endpoint qualifiers to Src and Dst respectively, the
	format of the format of a Tunnel_ID is:
	Src-Node_ID::Src-Tunnel_Num::Dst-Node_ID::Dst-Tunnel_Num		East-Node_ID::East-Tunnel_Num::West-Node_ID::West-Tunnel_Num
	Where the Tunnel_ID needs to be globally unique, this is accomplished		Where the Tunnel_ID needs to be globally unique, this is accomplished
	by using globally unique Node_IDs as defined above. Thus a globally		by using globally unique Node_IDs as defined above. Thus a globally
	unique Tunnel_ID becomes:		unique Tunnel_ID becomes:
	Src-Global_Node_ID::Src-Tunnel_Num::Dst-Global_Node_ID::		East-Global_Node_ID::East-Tunnel_Num::West-Global_Node_ID::
	Dst-Tunnel_Num		West-Tunnel_Num
	When an MPLS-TP Tunnel is configured, it MUST be assigned a unique		When an MPLS-TP Tunnel is configured, it MUST be assigned a unique
	IF_ID at both the source and destination endpoints. As usual, the		IF_ID at both the source and destination endpoints. As usual, the
	IF_ID is composed of the local NODE_ID concatenated with a 32-bit		IF_ID is composed of the local NODE_ID concatenated with a 32-bit
	IF_Num. It is RECOMMENDED that the IF_Num be auto-generated by adding		IF_Num.
	2^31 to the local Tunnel_Num.
	5.2. MPLS-TP LSP Identifiers		5.2. MPLS-TP LSP Identifiers
	Within the scope of an MPLS-TP Tunnel_ID an LSP can be uniquely		5.2.1. MPLS-TP Co-Routed Bidirectional LSP Identifiers
	identified by a single LSP number. Specifically an LSP_Num is a 16-
	bit unsigned integer unique within the Tunnel_ID. Thus the format of
	a LSP_ID is:
	Src-Node_ID::Src-Tunnel_Num::Dst-Node_ID::Dst-Tunnel_Num::LSP_Num		For a co-routed bidirectional LSP can be uniquely identified by a
			single LSP number within the scope of an MPLS-TP Tunnel_ID.
			Specifically an LSP_Num is a 16-bit unsigned integer unique within
			the Tunnel_ID. Thus the format of a LSP_ID is:
			East-Node_ID::East-Tunnel_Num::West-Node_ID::West-
			Tunnel_Num::LSP_Num
	Where the LSP_ID needs to be globally unique, this is accomplished by		Where the LSP_ID needs to be globally unique, this is accomplished by
	using globally unique Node_IDs as defined above. Thus a globally		using globally unique Node_IDs as defined above. Thus a globally
	unique Tunnel_ID becomes:		unique LSP_ID becomes:
	Src-Global_Node_ID::Src-Tunnel_Num::Dst-Global_Node_ID::		East-Global_Node_ID::East-Tunnel_Num::West-Global_Node_ID::
	Dst-Tunnel_Num::LSP_Num		West-Tunnel_Num::LSP_Num
	The corresponding ICC-based version of this identifier would be:		The corresponding ICC-based version of this identifier would be:
			East-ICC::East-Node_ID::East-Tunnel_Num::West-ICC::West-Node_ID::
			West-Tunnel_Num::LSP_Num
	Src-ICC::Src-Tunnel_Num::Dst-ICC::Dst-Tunnel_Num::LSP_Num		5.2.2. MPLS-TP Associated Bidirectional LSP Identifiers
	5.3. Mapping to GMPLS Signalling		For an associated bidirectional LSP each of the unidirectional LSPs
			from East to West and West to East require LSP IDs. The each LSP can
			be uniquely identified by a single LSP number within the scope of the
			senders Tunnel_Num. Specifically an LSP_Num is a 16-bit unsigned
			integer unique within the Tunnel_Num. Thus the format of a LSP_ID is:
			East-Node_ID::East-Tunnel_Num::East-LSP_Num::
			West-Node_ID::West-Tunnel_Num::West-LSP_Num
			Where the LSP_ID needs to be globally unique, this is accomplished by
			using globally unique Node_IDs as defined above. Thus a globally
			unique LSP_ID becomes:
			East-Global_Node_ID::East-Tunnel_Num::East-LSP_Num::
			West-Global_Node_ID::West-Tunnel_Num::West-LSP_Num
			The corresponding ICC-based version of this identifier would be:
			East-ICC::East-Node_ID::East-Tunnel_Num::East-LSP_Num::
			West-ICC::West-Node_ID::West-Tunnel_Num::West-LSP_Num
			5.3. Mapping to GMPLS and RSVP-TE Signalling
	This section defines the mapping from an MPLS-TP LSP_ID to GMPLS. At		This section defines the mapping from an MPLS-TP LSP_ID to GMPLS. At
	this time, GMPLS has yet to be extended to accommodate Global_IDs.		this time, GMPLS has yet to be extended to accommodate Global_IDs.
	Thus a mapping is only made for the network unique form of the		Thus a mapping is only made for the network unique form of the
	LSP_ID.		LSP_ID.
	GMPLS signaling [5] uses a 5-tuple to uniquely identify an LSP within		GMPLS signaling [5] uses a 5-tuple to uniquely identify an LSP within
	a operator's network. This tuple is composed of a Tunnel Endpoint		a operator's network. This tuple is composed of a Tunnel Endpoint
	Address, Tunnel_ID, Extended Tunnel ID, and Tunnel Sender Address and		Address, Tunnel_ID, Extended Tunnel ID, and Tunnel Sender Address and
	(GMPLS) LSP_ID.		(GMPLS) LSP_ID.
	In situations where a mapping to the GMPLS 5-tuple is required, the		In situations where a mapping to the GMPLS 5-tuple is required, the
	following mapping is used.		following mapping is used.
	o Tunnel Endpoint Address = Dst-Node_ID		o Tunnel Endpoint Address = West-Node_ID
	o Tunnel_ID = Src-Tunnel_Num		o Tunnel_ID = East-Tunnel_Num
	o Extended Tunnel_ID = Src-Node_ID		o Extended Tunnel_ID = East-Node_ID
	o Tunnel Sender Address = Src-Node_ID		o Tunnel Sender Address = East-Node_ID
	o LSP_ID = LSP_Num		o LSP_ID = East-LSP_Num
			An associated bi-directional LSP between two nodes East and West
			consists of two uni-directional LSPs, one from East to West and one
			from West to East. RSVP-TE is capable of signaling such LSPs.
			In situations where a mapping to the RSVP 5-tuples is required, the
			following mappings are used. For the East to West LSP the mapping
			would be:
			o Tunnel Endpoint Address = West-Node_ID
			o Tunnel_ID = East-Tunnel_Num
			o Extended Tunnel_ID = East-Node_ID
			o Tunnel Sender Address = East-Node_ID
			o LSP_ID = East-LSP_Num
			Likewise, the East to West LSP the mapping would be:
			o Tunnel Endpoint Address = East-Node_ID
			o Tunnel_ID = West-Tunnel_Num
			o Extended Tunnel_ID = West-Node_ID
			o Tunnel Sender Address = West-Node_ID
			o LSP_ID = West-LSP_Num
	6. Pseudowire Path Identifiers		6. Pseudowire Path Identifiers
	Pseudowire signaling (RFC 4447 [6]) defines two FECs used to signal		Pseudowire signaling (RFC 4447 [6]) defines two FECs used to signal
	pseudowires. Of these, FEC Type 129 along with AII Type 2 as defined		pseudowires. Of these, FEC Type 129 along with AII Type 2 as defined
	in RFC 5003 [3] fits the identification requirements of MPLS-TP.		in RFC 5003 [3] fits the identification requirements of MPLS-TP.
	In an MPLS-TP environment, a PW is identified by a set of identifiers		In an MPLS-TP environment, a PW is identified by a set of identifiers
	which can be mapped directly to the elements required by FEC 129 and		which can be mapped directly to the elements required by FEC 129 and
	AII Type 2. To distinguish this identifier from other Pseudowire		AII Type 2. To distinguish this identifier from other Pseudowire
	skipping to change at page 10, line 16		skipping to change at page 11, line 26
	Identifier (AGI). That field is exactly as specified in RFC 4447.		Identifier (AGI). That field is exactly as specified in RFC 4447.
	FEC 129 has a notion of Source AII (SAII) and Target AII (TAII).		FEC 129 has a notion of Source AII (SAII) and Target AII (TAII).
	These terms are used relative to the direction of the signaling. In		These terms are used relative to the direction of the signaling. In
	a purely configured environment when referring to the entire PW, this		a purely configured environment when referring to the entire PW, this
	distinction is not critical. That is a FEC 129 of AGIa::AIIb::AIIc		distinction is not critical. That is a FEC 129 of AGIa::AIIb::AIIc
	is equivalent to AGIa::AIIc::AIIb. We note that in a signaled		is equivalent to AGIa::AIIc::AIIb. We note that in a signaled
	environment, the required convention in RFC 4447 is that at a		environment, the required convention in RFC 4447 is that at a
	particular endpoint, the AII associated with that endpoint comes		particular endpoint, the AII associated with that endpoint comes
	first. The complete PW_Path_Id is:		first. The complete PW_Path_Id is:
	AGI::Src-Global_ID::Src-Node_ID::Src-AC_ID::Dst-Global_ID::		AGI::East-Global_Node_ID::East-AC_ID::West-Global_Node_ID::
	Dst-Node_ID::Dst-AC_ID.		West-AC_ID.
	The corresponding ICC-based version for this identifier would be:		The corresponding ICC-based version for this identifier would be:
	AGI::Src-ICC::Src-Node_ID::Src-AC_ID::Dst-ICC::Dst-Node_ID::		AGI::East-ICC::East-Node_ID::East-AC_ID::West-ICC::West-Node_ID::
	Dst-AC_ID		West-AC_ID
	7. Maintenance Identifiers		7. Maintenance Identifiers
	In MPLS-TP a Maintenance Entity Group (MEG) represents an Entity that		In MPLS-TP a Maintenance Entity Group (MEG) represents an Entity that
	requires management and defines a relationship between a set of		requires management and defines a relationship between a set of
	maintenance points. A maintenance point is either Maintenance Entity		maintenance points. A maintenance point is either Maintenance Entity
	Group End-point (MEP) or a Maintenance Entity Group Intermediate		Group End-point (MEP) or a Maintenance Entity Group Intermediate
	Point (MIP). Maintenance points are uniquely associated with a MEG.		Point (MIP). Maintenance points are uniquely associated with a MEG.
	Within the context of a MEG, MEPs and MIPs must be uniquely		Within the context of a MEG, MEPs and MIPs must be uniquely
	identified. This section defines a means of uniquely identifying		identified. This section defines a means of uniquely identifying
	Maintenance Entity Groups, Maintenance Entities and uniquely defining		Maintenance Entity Groups, Maintenance Entities and uniquely defining
	MEPs and MIPs within the context of a Maintenance Entity Group.		MEPs and MIPs within the context of a Maintenance Entity Group.
	Note that depending on the requirements of a particular OAM
	interaction, the MPLS-TP maintenance entity context may be provided
	either explicitly using the MEG_IDs described above or implicitly by
	the label of the received OAM message.
	7.1. Maintenance Entity Group Identifiers		7.1. Maintenance Entity Group Identifiers
	Maintenance Entity Group Identifiers (MEG_IDs) are required for		Maintenance Entity Group Identifiers (MEG_IDs) are required for
	MPLS-TP LSPs and Pseudowires. Two classes of MEG_IDs are defined,		MPLS-TP LSPs and Pseudowires. Two classes of MEG_IDs are defined,
	one that follows the IP compatible identifier defined above as well		one that follows the IP compatible identifier defined above as well
	as the ICC-format.		as the ICC-format.
	7.1.1. ICC-based MEG Identifiers		7.1.1. ICC-based MEG Identifiers
	MEG_ID for MPLS-TP LSPs and Pseudowires MAY use the globally unique		MEG_ID for MPLS-TP LSPs and Pseudowires MAY use the globally unique
	skipping to change at page 12, line 21		skipping to change at page 13, line 26
	the elements of identification that are unique to an endpoint. This		the elements of identification that are unique to an endpoint. This
	ensures that MEP_IDs are unique for all LSPs within a operator. When		ensures that MEP_IDs are unique for all LSPs within a operator. When
	Tunnels or LSPs cross operator boundaries, these are made unique by		Tunnels or LSPs cross operator boundaries, these are made unique by
	pre-pending them with the operator's Global_ID.		pre-pending them with the operator's Global_ID.
	The MPLS-TP LSP_MEP_ID is		The MPLS-TP LSP_MEP_ID is
	Node_ID::Tunnel_Num::LSP_Num,		Node_ID::Tunnel_Num::LSP_Num,
	where the Node_ID is the node in which the MEP is located and		where the Node_ID is the node in which the MEP is located and
	Tunnel_Num is the tunnel number unique to that node.		Tunnel_Num is the tunnel number unique to that node. In the case of
			Associated Bi-directional LSPs, the LSP_Num unique to where the MEP
			resides.
	In situations where global uniqueness is required this becomes:		In situations where global uniqueness is required this becomes:
	Src-Global_ID::Src-Node_ID::Src-Tunnel_Num::LSP_Num		Global_ID::Node_ID::Tunnel_Num::LSP_Num
	7.2.2.2. MEP_IDs for Pseudowires		7.2.2.2. MEP_IDs for Pseudowires
	Like MPLS-TP LSPs, Pseudowire endpoints (T-PEs) require MEP_IDs. In		Like MPLS-TP LSPs, Pseudowire endpoints (T-PEs) require MEP_IDs. In
	order to automatically generate MEP_IDs for PWs, we simply use the		order to automatically generate MEP_IDs for PWs, we simply use the
	AGI plus the AII associated with that end of the PW. Thus a MEP_ID		AGI plus the AII associated with that end of the PW. Thus a MEP_ID
	used in end-to-end for an Pseudowire T-PE takes the form		used in end-to-end for an Pseudowire T-PE takes the form
	AGI:Src-Global_ID::Src-Node_ID::Src-AC_ID,		AGI:Global_ID::Node_ID::AC_ID,
	where the Node_ID is the node in which the MEP is located and		where the Node_ID is the node in which the MEP is located and the
	Tunnel_Num is the tunnel number unique to that node.		AC_ID is the AC_ID of the Pseudowire at that node.
	7.2.2.3. Endpoint IDs Pseudowire Segments		7.2.2.3. Pseudowire Segments Endpoint IDs
	In some OAM communications, messages are originated by the node at		In some OAM communications, messages are originated by the node at
	one end of a PW segment and relayed to the other end of that same		one end of a PW segment and relayed to the other end of that same
	segment by setting the TTL of the PW label to one (1). For a multi-		segment by setting the TTL of the PW label to one (1). For a multi-
	segment pseudowire, TTL could be set to any value that would cause		segment pseudowire, TTL could be set to any value that would cause
	OAM messages to reach the target segment end-point (up to and		OAM messages to reach the target segment end-point (up to and
	including 255).		including 255). In such communications an identifier for the
			pseudowire segment endpoint. We call this a Pseudowire Segments
			Endpoint ID or PW_SE_ID.
	The MEP_ID Is Formed by a combination of a PW MEP_ID and the		The PW_SE_ID is formed by a combination of a PW MEP_ID and the
	identification of the local node. At an S-PE, there are two PW		identification of the local node. At an S-PE, there are two PW
	segments. We distinguish the segments by using the MEP_ID which is		segments. We distinguish the segments by using the MEP_ID which is
	upstream of the PW segment in question. To complete the		upstream of the PW segment in question. To complete the
	identification we suffix this with the identification of the local		identification we suffix this with the identification of the local
	node.		node.
	+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+		+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
	| | | | | | | |		| | | | | | | |
	| A|---------|B C|---------|D E|---------|F |		| A|---------|B C|---------|D E|---------|F |
	| | | | | | | |		| | | | | | | |
	+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+		+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
	(T)PE1 (S)PE2 (S)PE3 (T)PE4		(T)PE1 (S)PE2 (S)PE3 (T)PE4
	Pseudowire Maintenance Points		Pseudowire Maintenance Points
	For example, suppose that in the above figure all of the nodes have		For example, suppose that in the above figure all of the nodes have
	Global_ID GID1; the node are represented as named in the figure; and		Global_ID GID1; the node are represented as named in the figure; and
	The identification for the Pseudowire is:		The identification for the Pseudowire is:
	AGI = AGI1		AGI = AGI1
	Src-Global_ID = GID1		East-Global_ID = GID1
	Src-Node_ID = PE1		East-Node_ID = PE1
	Src-AC_ID = AII1		East-AC_ID = AII1
	Dst-Global_ID = GID1		West-Global_ID = GID1
	Dst-Node_ID = PE4		West-Node_ID = PE4
	Dst-AC_ID = AII4		West-AC_ID = AII4
	The PW segment endpoint MEP_ID at point A would be -		The MEP_ID at point A would be -
	AGI1::GID1::PE1::AII1		AGI1::GID1::PE1::AII1
	The MP_ID at point C would be -		The PW_SE_ID at point C would be -
	AGI1::GID1::PE1::AII1::GID1::PE2		AGI1::GID1::PE1::AII1::GID1::PE2
	7.3. MIP Identifiers		7.3. MIP Identifiers
	At a cross-connect point, in order to automatically generate MIP_IDs		At a cross-connect point, in order to automatically generate MIP_IDs
	for MPLS-TP, we simply use the IF_IDs of the two interfaces which are		for MPLS-TP, we simply use the IF_IDs of the two interfaces which are
	cross-connected via the label bindings of the MPLS-TP LSP. If only		cross-connected via the label bindings of the MPLS-TP LSP. This
	one MIP is configured, then the MIP_ID is formed using the Node_ID		allows, two MIPs to be independently identified in one node where a
	and an IF_Num of 0. In some contexts, such as LSP Ping[13], the		per-interface MIP model is used. If only a per node MIP model is
	Node_ID alone may be used as the MIP_ID.		used then one MIP is configured. In this case the MIP_ID is formed
			using the Node_ID and an IF_Num of 0.
	8. IANA Considerations		8. IANA Considerations
	There are no IANA actions resulting from this document.		There are no IANA actions resulting from this document.
	9. Security Considerations		9. Security Considerations
	This document describes an information model and, as such, does not		This document describes an information model and, as such, does not
	introduce security concerns. Protocol specifications that describe		introduce security concerns. Protocol specifications that describe
	use of this information model - however - may introduce security		use of this information model - however - may introduce security
	skipping to change at page 14, line 21		skipping to change at page 15, line 29
	reason, the writers of protocol specifications for the purpose of		reason, the writers of protocol specifications for the purpose of
	describing implementation of this information model need to describe		describing implementation of this information model need to describe
	security and authentication concerns that may be raised by the		security and authentication concerns that may be raised by the
	particular mechanisms defined and how those concerns may be		particular mechanisms defined and how those concerns may be
	addressed.		addressed.
	10. References		10. References
	10.1. Normative References		10.1. Normative References
	[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement		[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
	Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.		Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
	[2] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., and
	G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels",
	RFC 3209, December 2001.
	[3] Metz, C., Martini, L., Balus, F., and J. Sugimoto, "Attachment
	Individual Identifier (AII) Types for Aggregation", RFC 5003,
	September 2007.
	[4] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
	Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, January 2003.
	[5] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
	Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering
	(RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
	[6] Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., Smith, T., and G. Heron,
	"Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label Distribution
	Protocol (LDP)", RFC 4447, April 2006.
	[7] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., and A. Kullberg, "Signalling		[2] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., and G.
	Unnumbered Links in CR-LDP (Constraint-Routing Label		Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels",
	Distribution Protocol)", RFC 3480, February 2003.		RFC 3209, December 2001.
	[8] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., and L. Berger, "Link Bundling in		[3] Metz, C., Martini, L., Balus, F., and J. Sugimoto, "Attachment
	MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4201, October 2005.		Individual Identifier (AII) Types for Aggregation", RFC 5003,
			September 2007.
	[9] Lang, J., Rekhter, Y., and D. Papadimitriou, "RSVP-TE		[4] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
	Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi-Protocol		Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, January 2003.
	Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery", RFC 4872, May 2007.
	[10] Aggarwal, R., Kompella, K., Nadeau, T., and G. Swallow,		[5] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
	"Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for MPLS Label		Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering
	Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 5884, June 2010.		(RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
	[11] Nadeau, T. and C. Pignataro, "Bidirectional Forwarding		[6] Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., Smith, T., and G. Heron,
	Detection (BFD) for the Pseudowire Virtual Circuit Connectivity		"Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label Distribution
	Verification (VCCV)", RFC 5885, June 2010.		Protocol (LDP)", RFC 4447, April 2006.
	10.2. Informative References		10.2. Informative References
	[12] Niven-Jenkins, B., Brungard, D., Betts, M., Sprecher, N., and		[7] Niven-Jenkins, B., Brungard, D., Betts, M., Sprecher, N., and S.
	S. Ueno, "Requirements of an MPLS Transport Profile", RFC 5654,		Ueno, "Requirements of an MPLS Transport Profile", RFC 5654,
	September 2009.		September 2009.
	[13] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol Label
	Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379, February 2006.
	[14] Ohta, H., "Assignment of the 'OAM Alert Label' for
	Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS) Operation and
	Maintenance (OAM) Functions", RFC 3429, November 2002.
	[15] Vigoureux, M., Ward, D., and M. Betts, "Requirements for
	Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) in MPLS
	Transport Networks", RFC 5860, May 2010.
	[16] Bocci, M., Bryant, S., Frost, D., Levrau, L., and L. Berger, "A
	Framework for MPLS in Transport Networks", RFC 5921, July 2010.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Matthew Bocci		Matthew Bocci
	Alcatel-Lucent		Alcatel-Lucent
	Voyager Place, Shoppenhangers Road		Voyager Place, Shoppenhangers Road
	Maidenhead, Berks SL6 2PJ		Maidenhead, Berks SL6 2PJ
	UK		UK
	Email: matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com		Email: matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com
End of changes. 63 change blocks.
	185 lines changed or deleted		217 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/