draft-ietf-mpls-tp-li-lb-03.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-tp-li-lb-04.txt 
Network Working Group Sami Boutros (Ed.) Network Working Group Sami Boutros (Ed.)
Internet Draft Siva Sivabalan (Ed.) Internet Draft Siva Sivabalan (Ed.)
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc. Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: February 15, 2012 Expires: March 2, 2012
Rahul Aggarwal (Ed.) Rahul Aggarwal (Ed.)
Juniper Networks, Inc. Juniper Networks, Inc.
Martin Vigoureux (Ed.) Martin Vigoureux (Ed.)
Alcatel-Lucent Alcatel-Lucent
Xuehui Dai (Ed.) Xuehui Dai (Ed.)
ZTE Corporation ZTE Corporation
August 15, 2011 September 2, 2011
MPLS Transport Profile lock Instruct and Loopback Functions MPLS Transport Profile lock Instruct and Loopback Functions
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-li-lb-03.txt draft-ietf-mpls-tp-li-lb-04.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts. Drafts.
skipping to change at page 1, line 42 skipping to change at page 1, line 42
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 15, 2012. This Internet-Draft will expire on March 2, 2012.
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies one function and describes a second This document specifies one function and describes a second
function which are applicable to MPLS transport networks. The first function which are applicable to MPLS transport networks. The first
function enables an operator to lock a transport path while the function enables an operator to lock a transport path while the
second enables an operator to set, in loopback, a given node along second enables an operator to set, in loopback, a given node along
a transport path. This document also defines the extension to MPLS a transport path. This document also defines the extension to MPLS
operation, administration, and maintenance (OAM) to perform the operation, administration, and maintenance (OAM) to perform the
lock function. lock function.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................2 1. Introduction...................................................2
2. Terminology....................................................4 2. Terminology....................................................4
3. Lock Message...................................................4 3. Lock Message...................................................5
3.1. In-band Message Identification............................4 3.1. Message Identification....................................5
3.2. LI Message Format.........................................5 3.2. LI Message Format.........................................5
4. Lock Operation.................................................5 4. Lock, Loopback and maintenance operations......................6
4.1. UnLock Operation..........................................6 5. Operation......................................................6
5. Loopback and maintenance operations............................6 5.1. Lock Operation............................................6
6. Operation......................................................6 5.2. UnLock Operation..........................................7
6.1. General Procedures........................................6 5.3. General Procedures........................................7
6.2. Example Topology..........................................6 5.4. Example Topology..........................................7
6.3. Locking a transport path..................................7 5.5. Locking a transport path..................................8
6.4. UnLocking a transport path................................7 5.6. UnLocking a transport path................................8
7. Security Considerations........................................7 6. Security Considerations........................................8
8. IANA Considerations............................................8 7. IANA Considerations............................................9
8.1. Pseudowire Associated Channel Type........................8 7.1. Pseudowire Associated Channel Type........................9
9. Acknowledgements...............................................8 8. Acknowledgements...............................................9
10. References....................................................8 9. References.....................................................9
10.1. Normative References.....................................8 9.1. Normative References......................................9
10.2. Informative References...................................9 9.2. Informative References...................................10
Author's Addresses................................................9 Author's Addresses...............................................10
Full Copyright Statement.........................................11 Full Copyright Statement.........................................11
Intellectual Property Statement..................................11 Intellectual Property Statement..................................12
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document specifies one function and describes another function This document specifies one function and describes another function
which are applicable to MPLS transport networks. which are applicable to MPLS transport networks.
The first function enables an operator to lock a transport path. The The first function enables an operator to lock a transport path. The
second function enables an operator to set that transport path in second function enables an operator to set that transport path in
loopback at a specified node along the path. This document also loopback at a specified node along the path. This document also
defines the extensions to the MPLS operation, administration and defines the extensions to the MPLS operation, administration and
maintenance (OAM) to perform the lock function. maintenance (OAM) to perform the lock function.
The Lock function is operated from MEP to MEP on bidirectional The Lock function pertains to Label Switched Paths (LSPs),
(associated and co-routed) Label Switched Paths (LSPs), Pseudowires Pseudowires(including multi-segment Pseudowires) and Sections. As per
(including multi-segment Pseudowires). As per RFC 5860 [1], lock is RFC 5860 [1], lock is an administrative state in which it is expected
an administrative state in which it is expected that only test that no client traffic may be carried.
traffic and control traffic (such as OAM messages dedicated to the However, test traffic and OAM messages dedicated to the transport
transport path) can be mapped on that transport path. path can be mapped on that transport path.
Taking the example of an LSP, lock is initiated by an operator.
Typically when an LSP is locked, both ends of the LSP are
independently locked by the operator. It is often difficult to
coordinate these lock operations within a tight window. This document
defines a new OAM message, Lock Instruct (LI) in order to provide the
desired tight coordination.
When an endpoint of an LSP or PW is locked by an operator, the MEP
sends LI messages to its peer MEP. An endpoint considers the LSP to
be locked when either it receives an external operator command or
when it receives an LI message.
The Lock function can be performed using an extension to the MPLS OAM The Lock function can be performed using an extension to the MPLS OAM
as described in the next sections. This is a common mechanism to lock as described in the next sections. This is a common mechanism to lock
PWs and LSPs. PWs, LSPs and Sections.
The Lock function can as well be realized using a management plane. The Lock function can as well be realized using a management plane.
The Loopback function is operated from MEP to MEP on bidirectional The Loopback function is operated by NMS from MEP to MEP on
(associated and co-routed) Label Switched Paths (LSPs), Pseudowires bidirectional (associated and co-routed) Label Switched Paths (LSPs),
(including multi-segment Pseudowires). The Loopback function is Pseudowires (including multi-segment Pseudowires) and Sections. The
additionally operated from MEP to MIP on co-routed bidirectional Loopback function is additionally operated from MEP to MIP on co-
LSPs, and on multi-segment Pseudowires. The Loopback is a function routed bidirectional LSPs, on multi-segment Pseudowires and Sections.
that enables a MEP to request a MEP or a MIP to enter a loopback The Loopback is a function that enables a MEP to request a MEP or a
state. This state corresponds to the situation where, at a given MIP to enter a loopback state. This state corresponds to the
node, a forwarding plane loop is configured and the incoming situation where, at a given node, a forwarding plane loop is
direction of a transport path is cross-connected to the outgoing configured and the incoming direction of a transport path is cross-
reverse direction. Therefore, except in the case of early TTL expiry, connected to the outgoing reverse direction. Therefore, except in the
traffic sent by the source will be received by that source. case of early TTL expiry, traffic sent by the source will be received
Note that before setting a given node in Loopback for a specific by that source. Note that before setting a given node in Loopback for
transport path, this transport path MUST be locked. a specific transport path, this transport path MUST be locked.
Data plane loopback is an out-of-service function, as required in
section 2.2.5 of RFC 5860 [1]. This function loops back all traffic
(including user data and OAM). The traffic can be originated from one
internal point at the ingress of a transport path within an interface
or inserted from input port of an interface using an external test
equipment. The traffic is looped back unmodified (other than normal
per hop processing such as TTL decrement) in the direction of the
point of origin by an interface at either an intermediate node or a
terminating node. It should be noted that data plane loopback
function itself is applied to data plane loopback points that can
resides on different interfaces from MIPs/MEPs. All traffic
(including both payload and OAM) received on the looped back
interface is sent on the reverse direction of the transport path.
If the data plane loopback point is set somewhere at an intermediate
point in bidirectional transport path, the side of loop back function
(one side or both side) needs to be configured. A management system
can configure one side or both sides to loopback at an intermediate
point.
The Loopback can be performed using a management plane. Management The Loopback can be performed using a management plane. Management
plane MUST insure that the two MEPs are locked before performing the plane MUST insure that the two MEPs are locked before performing the
loopback function. loopback function.
The Lock function is based on a new G-ACH message using a new channel The Lock function is based on a new G-ACH message using a new channel
type as well as an existing TLV. type as well as an existing TLV.
When an LSP is locked, the management or control function is expected When an LSP is locked, the management or control function is expected
to lock both ends. The purpose of the Lock message is to ensure the to lock both ends. The purpose of the Lock instruct LI message is to
tight coordination of locking and unlocking the two ends. Lock ensure the tight coordination of locking and unlocking the two ends.
Instruct messages may be lost during looping or maintenance Lock Instruct messages may be lost during looping or maintenance
operations, thus locking both ends is required, before such operations, thus locking both ends is required, before such
operations occur. operations occur.
Conventions used in this document Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [2]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [2].
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
skipping to change at page 4, line 39 skipping to change at page 5, line 26
TLV: Type Length Value TLV: Type Length Value
TTL: Time To Live TTL: Time To Live
LI: Lock Instruct LI: Lock Instruct
Transport path: MPLS-TP LSP or MPLS Pseudowire. Transport path: MPLS-TP LSP or MPLS Pseudowire.
3. Lock Message 3. Lock Message
3.1. In-band Message Identification 3.1. Message Identification
The proposed mechanism uses a new code point in the Associated The proposed mechanism uses a new code point in the Associated
Channel Header (ACH) described in [4]. Channel Header (ACH) described in [4].
In the in-band option, the LI channel is identified by the ACH as The LI channel is identified by the ACH as defined in RFC 5586 [4]
defined in RFC 5586 [4] with the Channel Type set to the LI code with the Channel Type set to the LI code point = 0xHH. [HH to be
point = 0xHH. [HH to be assigned by IANA from the PW Associated assigned by IANA from the PW Associated Channel Type registry] The
Channel Type registry] The LI Channel does not use ACH TLVs and MUST LI Channel does not use ACH TLVs and MUST NOT include the ACH TLV
NOT include the ACH TLV header. The LI ACH Channel is shown below. header. The LI ACH Channel is shown below.
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 1|Version|Reserved | 0xHH (LI) | |0 0 0 1|Version|Reserved | 0xHH (LI) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: ACH Indication of LI Figure 1: ACH Indication of LI
The LI Channel is 0xHH (to be assigned by IANA) The LI Channel is 0xHH (to be assigned by IANA)
3.2. LI Message Format 3.2. LI Message Format
skipping to change at page 5, line 44 skipping to change at page 6, line 30
The version number may not need to be changed if an optional TLV or The version number may not need to be changed if an optional TLV or
sub-TLV is added.) sub-TLV is added.)
Refresh Timer: The maximum time between successive LI messages Refresh Timer: The maximum time between successive LI messages
specified in seconds. The default value is 1. The value 0 is not specified in seconds. The default value is 1. The value 0 is not
permitted. When a lock is applied, a refresh timer is chosen. This permitted. When a lock is applied, a refresh timer is chosen. This
value MUST NOT be changed for the duration of that lock. value MUST NOT be changed for the duration of that lock.
MEP Source ID TLV: This is the "CC/CV MEP ID TLV" defined in [3]. MEP Source ID TLV: This is the "CC/CV MEP ID TLV" defined in [3].
4. Lock Operation 4. Lock, Loopback and maintenance operations
lock is used to request a MEP to take a transport path out of service When an LSP is locked, the management or control function is expected
so that some form of maintenance can be done. to lock both ends. The purpose of the LI message is to ensure the
tight coordination of locking and unlocking the two ends. LI
messages may be lost during looping or maintenance operations, thus
locking both ends is required, before such operations occur.
When a transport path is put in loopback, traffic sent from the
sender MEP will be looped back to that sender MEP. OAM packets not
intercepted by TTL expiry will as well be looped back. The use of
traffic to measure packet loss, delay and delay variation is outside
the scope of this document.
5. Operation
5.1. Lock Operation
Lock is used to request a MEP to take a transport path out of service
so that some form of maintenance can be done or other administrative
reasons.
When performing a lock, a sender MEP in response to a management When performing a lock, a sender MEP in response to a management
system request MUST take the transport path out of service and MUST system request MUST take the transport path out of service and MUST
send LI messages periodically to the target MEP at the end of the send LI messages periodically to the target MEP at the end of the
transport path. LI messages will be sent once every refresh time transport path. LI messages will be sent once every refresh time
interval. interval.
The receiver MEP, will lock the transport path as long as it is The receiver MEP, will lock the transport path as long as it is
receiving the periodic LI messages. receiving the periodic LI messages.
The receiver MEP once locked, MUST take the transport path out of The receiver MEP once locked, MUST take the transport path out of
service. service.
4.1. UnLock Operation A MEP can be locked because it was requested by NMS to lock and as
such it is sending LI OAM messages, and/or it is receiving OAM LI
messages from the other MEP.
5.2. UnLock Operation
Unlock is used to request a MEP to bring the previously locked Unlock is used to request a MEP to bring the previously locked
transport path back in service. transport path back in service.
When a MEP is unlocked via management or control it MUST cease When a MEP is unlocked via management or control it MUST cease
sending LI messages. Further, it must have stopped receiving LI sending LI messages. Further, it must have stopped receiving LI
messages for a period of 3.5 times the previously received refresh messages for a period of 3.5 times the previously received refresh
timer before it brings the transport path back in service. timer before it brings the transport path back in service.
A MEP would unlock transport path and put it back to service if and A MEP would unlock transport path and put it back to service if and
only if there is no management request to lock the path and it is not only if there is no management request to lock the path and it is not
receiving in-band LI messages. receiving in-band LI messages.
5. Loopback and maintenance operations A MEP is unlocked when there is no NMS request to Lock and no LI OAM
messages are received.
When an LSP is locked, the management or control function is expected
to lock both ends. The purpose of the LI message is to ensure the
tight coordination of locking and unlocking the two ends. LI
messages may be lost during looping or maintenance operations, thus
locking both ends is required, before such operations occur.
When a transport path is put in loopback, traffic sent from the
sender MEP will be looped back to that sender MEP. OAM packets not
intercepted by TTL expiry will as well be looped back. The use of
traffic to measure packet loss, delay and delay variation is outside
the scope of this document.
6. Operation
6.1. General Procedures 5.3. General Procedures
When taking a transport path out of service, the operation MUST first When taking a transport path out of service, the operation MUST first
be preceded by a lock operation. be preceded by a lock operation.
6.2. Example Topology 5.4. Example Topology
The next sections discuss the procedures for locking, Unlocking a The next sections discuss the procedures for locking, Unlocking a
transport path. Assume a transport path traverses nodes A <--> B <-- transport path. Assume a transport path traverses nodes A <--> B <--
> C <--> D. We will refer to the Maintenance Entities involved as > C <--> D. We will refer to the Maintenance Entities involved as
MEP-A, MIP-B, MIP-C, and MEP-D respectively. Suppose a maintenance MEP-A, MIP-B, MIP-C, and MEP-D respectively. Suppose a maintenance
operation invoked at MEP-A requires to lock the transport path. operation invoked at MEP-A requires to lock the transport path.
The following sections describe MEP-A setting and unsetting a lock at The following sections describe MEP-A setting and unsetting a lock at
MEP-D. MEP-D.
6.3. Locking a transport path 5.5. Locking a transport path
1. MEP-A sends an in-band LI Message in response to a Management 1. MEP-A sends an in-band LI Message in response to a Management
system request to lock the transport path. The message will include system request to lock the transport path. The message will include
the source MEP-ID TLV. the source MEP-ID TLV.
2. Upon receiving the LI message, D uses the received label stack and 2. Upon receiving the LI message, D uses the received label stack and
the source MEP-ID as per [3] to identify the transport path. If no the source MEP-ID as per [3] to identify the transport path. If no
label binding exists or there is no associated transport path back to label binding exists or there is no associated transport path back to
the originator, or if the source MEP-ID does not match, the event is the originator, or if the source MEP-ID does not match, the event is
logged. Processing ceases. Otherwise the message is processed. logged. Processing ceases. Otherwise the message is processed.
6.4. UnLocking a transport path 5.6. UnLocking a transport path
1. In response to a Management system request to unlock the transport 1. In response to a Management system request to unlock the transport
path MEP-A stops sending LI Messages. path MEP-A stops sending LI Messages.
2. After 3.5 times the refresh timer, both sender MEP A and receive 2. After 3.5 times the refresh timer, both sender MEP A and receive
MEP D unlock the transport path and put the transport path back in MEP D unlock the transport path and put the transport path back in
service. service.
7. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
MPLS-TP is a subset of MPLS and so builds upon many of the aspects of MPLS-TP is a subset of MPLS and so builds upon many of the aspects of
the security model of MPLS. MPLS networks make the assumption that it the security model of MPLS. MPLS networks make the assumption that it
is very hard to inject traffic into a network, and equally hard to is very hard to inject traffic into a network, and equally hard to
cause traffic to be directed outside the network. The control plane cause traffic to be directed outside the network. The control plane
protocols utilize hop-by-hop security, and assume a "chain-of-trust" protocols utilize hop-by-hop security, and assume a "chain-of-trust"
model such that end-to-end control plane security is not used. For model such that end-to-end control plane security is not used. For
more information on the generic aspects of MPLS security, see [5]. more information on the generic aspects of MPLS security, see [6].
This document describes a protocol carried in the G-ACh [4], and so This document describes a protocol carried in the G-ACh [4], and so
is dependent on the security of the G-ACh, itself. The G-ACh is a is dependent on the security of the G-ACh, itself. The G-ACh is a
generalization of the Associated Channel defined in [6]. Thus, this generalization of the Associated Channel defined in [7]. Thus, this
document relies heavily on the security mechanisms provided for the document relies heavily on the security mechanisms provided for the
Associated Channel and described in those two documents. Associated Channel and described in those two documents.
A specific concern for the G-ACh is that is can be used to provide a A specific concern for the G-ACh is that is can be used to provide a
covert channel. This problem is wider than the scope of this covert channel. This problem is wider than the scope of this
document and does not need to be addressed here, but it should be document and does not need to be addressed here, but it should be
noted that the channel provides end-to-end connectivity and SHOULD noted that the channel provides end-to-end connectivity and SHOULD
NOT be policed by transit nodes. Thus, there is no simple way of NOT be policed by transit nodes. Thus, there is no simple way of
preventing any traffic being carried between in the G-ACh consenting preventing any traffic being carried between in the G-ACh consenting
nodes. nodes.
A good discussion of the data plane security of an associated channel A good discussion of the data plane security of an associated channel
may be found in [7]. That document also describes some mitigation may be found in [5]. That document also describes some mitigation
techniques. techniques.
It should be noted that the G-ACh is essentially connection-oriented It should be noted that the G-ACh is essentially connection-oriented
so injection or modification of control messages specified in this so injection or modification of control messages specified in this
document require the subversion of a transit node. Such subversion is document require the subversion of a transit node. Such subversion is
generally considered hard in MPLS networks, and impossible to protect generally considered hard in MPLS networks, and impossible to protect
against at the protocol level. Management level techniques are more against at the protocol level. Management level techniques are more
appropriate. appropriate.
8. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
8.1. Pseudowire Associated Channel Type 7.1. Pseudowire Associated Channel Type
LI OAM requires a unique Associated Channel Type which is assigned by LI OAM requires a unique Associated Channel Type which is assigned by
IANA from the Pseudowire Associated Channel Types Registry. IANA from the Pseudowire Associated Channel Types Registry.
Registry: Registry:
Value Description TLV Follows Reference Value Description TLV Follows Reference
----------- ----------------------- ----------- --------- ----------- ----------------------- ----------- ---------
0xHHHH LI No (Section 3.1) 0xHHHH LI No (Section 3.1)
9. Acknowledgements 8. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Loa Andersson for his valuable The authors would like to thank Loa Andersson, Yoshinori Koike,
comments. D'Alessandro Alessandro Gerardo, Shahram Davari, Greg Mirsky, Yaacov
Weingarten, Liu Guoman, Matthew Bocci, Stewart Bryant and Adrian
Farrel for their valuable comments.
10. References 9. References
10.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[1] Vigoureux, M., Ward, D., and M. Betts, "Requirements for [1] Vigoureux, M., Ward, D., and M. Betts, "Requirements for
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) in MPLS Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) in MPLS
Transport Networks", RFC 5860, May 2010. Transport Networks", RFC 5860, May 2010.
[2] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement [2] 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.
[3] D. Allan, et. al., Proactive Connectivity Verification, [3] D. Allan, et. al., Proactive Connectivity Verification,
Continuity Check and Remote Defect indication for MPLS Continuity Check and Remote Defect indication for MPLS
Transport Profile draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-06, work in Transport Profile draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-06, work in
progress, June 2010 progress, June 2010
[4] Bocci, M., Vigoureux, M., and S. Bryant, "MPLS Generic [4] Bocci, M., Vigoureux, M., and S. Bryant, "MPLS Generic
Associated Channel", RFC 5586, June 2009. Associated Channel", RFC 5586, June 2009.
[5] L. Fang, "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks", RFC [5] T. Nadeau, C. Pignataro, "Pseudowire Virtual Circuit
5920, July 2010.
[6] S. Bryant, G. Swallow, L. Martini "Pseudowire Emulation Edge-
to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC
4385, Feb 2006.
[7] T. Nadeau, C. Pignataro, "Pseudowire Virtual Circuit
Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control Channel for Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control Channel for
Pseudowires", RFC 5085, Dec 2007. Pseudowires", RFC 5085, Dec 2007.
10.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[1] Bocci, M. and G. Swallow, "MPLS-TP Identifiers", draft-ietf-
mpls-tp-identifiers-07 (work in progress), June 2010.
[2] Niven-Jenkins, B., Brungard, D., Betts, M., Sprecher, N., and [6] L. Fang, "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks", RFC
S.Ueno, "Requirements of an MPLS Transport Profile", RFC 5654, 5920, July 2010.
September 2009.
[3] Nabil Bitar, et. al, "Requirements for Multi-Segment Pseudowire [7] S. Bryant, G. Swallow, L. Martini "Pseudowire Emulation Edge-
Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) ", RFC 5254, October 2008. to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC
4385, Feb 2006.
Author's Addresses Author's Addresses
Sami Boutros Sami Boutros
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: sboutros@cisco.com Email: sboutros@cisco.com
Siva Sivabalan Siva Sivabalan
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: msiva@cisco.com Email: msiva@cisco.com
skipping to change at page 10, line 33 skipping to change at page 11, line 22
Eric Osborne Eric Osborne
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: eosborne@cisco.com Email: eosborne@cisco.com
Nabil Bitar Nabil Bitar
Verizon. Verizon.
Email: nabil.bitar@verizon.com Email: nabil.bitar@verizon.com
Italo Busi Italo Busi
Alcatel-Lucent. Alcatel-Lucent.
Email: italo.busi@alcatel-lucent.it Email: italo.busi@alcatel-lucent.com
Lieven Levrau Lieven Levrau
Alcatel-Lucent. Alcatel-Lucent.
Email: llevrau@alcatel-lucent.com Email: lieven.levrau@alcatel-lucent.com
Laurent Ciavaglia Laurent Ciavaglia
Alcatel-Lucent. Alcatel-Lucent.
Email: laurent.ciavaglia@alcatel-lucent.com Email: laurent.ciavaglia@alcatel-lucent.com
Bo Wu Bo Wu
ZTE Corporation. ZTE Corporation.
Email: wu.bo@zte.com.cn Email: wu.bo@zte.com.cn
Jian Yang Jian Yang
ZTE Corporation. ZTE Corporation.
Email: yang_jian@zte.com.cn Email: yang_jian@zte.com.cn
Full Copyright Statement Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (c) 2011 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
 End of changes. 40 change blocks. 
107 lines changed or deleted 139 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/