draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-10.txt   draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-11.txt 
Network Working Group Y. Lee Network Working Group Y. Lee
Internet Draft Huawei Internet Draft Huawei
Intended status: Informational Intended status: Informational
Expires: June 2014 G. Bernstein Expires: September 2014 G. Bernstein
Grotto Networking Grotto Networking
Jonas Martensson Jonas Martensson
Acreo Acreo
T. Takeda T. Takeda
NTT NTT
T. Tsuritani T. Tsuritani
KDDI KDDI
O. G. de Dios O. G. de Dios
Telefonica Telefonica
December 23, 2013 March 11, 2014
PCEP Requirements for WSON Routing and Wavelength Assignment PCEP Requirements for WSON Routing and Wavelength Assignment
draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-10.txt draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-11.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with
the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. the 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 47 skipping to change at page 1, line 47
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." reference 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 April 23, 2009. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 11, 2014.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2014 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 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
skipping to change at page 2, line 41 skipping to change at page 2, line 41
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 0. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 0.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction ...................................................3 1. Introduction ...................................................3
1.1. WSON RWA Processes........................................4 2. WSON RWA Processes & Architecture ..............................4
2. WSON PCE Architectures and Requirements ........................5 3. Requirements ...................................................6
2.1. RWA PCC to PCE Interface..................................6 3.1. Path Computation Type Option..............................6
2.1.1. RWA Computation Type and Wavelength Assignment Option6 3.2. RWA Processing............................................6
2.1.2. Bulk RWA path request/reply..........................7 3.3. Bulk RWA Path Request/Reply...............................7
2.1.3. An RWA path re-optimization request/reply............7 3.4. RWA Path Re-optimization Request/Reply....................7
2.1.4. Wavelength Range Constraint..........................7 3.5. Wavelength Range Constraint...............................7
2.1.5. Wavelength Policy Constraint.........................8 3.6. Wavelength Assignment Preference..........................8
2.1.6. Signal Processing Capability Restriction.............8 3.7. Signal Processing Capability Restriction..................8
3. Manageability Considerations ...................................8 4. Manageability Considerations ...................................8
3.1. Control of Function and Policy............................8 4.1. Control of Function and Policy............................9
3.2. Information and Data Models, e.g. MIB module..............9 4.2. Information and Data Models, e.g. MIB module..............9
3.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring.........................9 4.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring.........................9
3.4. Verifying Correct Operation...............................9 4.4. Verifying Correct Operation...............................9
3.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components.9 4.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components10
3.6. Impact on Network Operation..............................10 4.6. Impact on Network Operation..............................10
4. Security Considerations .......................................10 5. Security Considerations .......................................10
5. IANA Considerations ...........................................10 6. IANA Considerations ...........................................10
6. Acknowledgments ...............................................10 7. Acknowledgments ...............................................10
7. References ....................................................10 8. References ....................................................10
7.1. Normative References.....................................10 8.1. Normative References.....................................10
7.2. Informative References...................................11 8.2. Informative References...................................11
Authors' Addresses...............................................12 Authors' Addresses...............................................12
Intellectual Property Statement..................................12 Intellectual Property Statement..................................12
Disclaimer of Validity...........................................13 Disclaimer of Validity...........................................13
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
[RFC4655] defines the PCE based Architecture and explains how a Path [RFC4655] defines the PCE based Architecture and explains how a Path
Computation Element (PCE) may compute Label Switched Paths (LSP) in Computation Element (PCE) may compute Label Switched Paths (LSP) in
Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) and Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) and
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks at the request of Path Computation Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks at the request of Path Computation
skipping to change at page 4, line 13 skipping to change at page 4, line 13
of an optical signal. of an optical signal.
The path in WSON is referred to as a lightpath. A lightpath may The path in WSON is referred to as a lightpath. A lightpath may
span multiple fiber links and the path should be assigned a span multiple fiber links and the path should be assigned a
wavelength for each link. A transparent optical network is made up wavelength for each link. A transparent optical network is made up
of optical devices that can switch but not convert from one of optical devices that can switch but not convert from one
wavelength to another. In a transparent optical network, a lightpath wavelength to another. In a transparent optical network, a lightpath
operates on the same wavelength across all fiber links that it operates on the same wavelength across all fiber links that it
traverses. In such case, the lightpath is said to satisfy the traverses. In such case, the lightpath is said to satisfy the
wavelength-continuity constraint. Two lightpaths that share a common wavelength-continuity constraint. Two lightpaths that share a common
fiber link can not be assigned the same wavelength. To do otherwise fiber link cannot be assigned the same wavelength. To do otherwise
would result in both signals interfering with each other. Note that would result in both signals interfering with each other. Note that
advanced additional multiplexing techniques such as polarization advanced additional multiplexing techniques such as polarization
based multiplexing are not addressed in this document since the based multiplexing are not addressed in this document since the
physical layer aspects are not currently standardized. Therefore, physical layer aspects are not currently standardized. Therefore,
assigning the proper wavelength on a lightpath is an essential assigning the proper wavelength on a lightpath is an essential
requirement in the optical path computation process. requirement in the optical path computation process.
When a switching node has the ability to perform wavelength When a switching node has the ability to perform wavelength
conversion the wavelength-continuity constraint can be relaxed, and conversion the wavelength-continuity constraint can be relaxed, and
a lightpath may use different wavelengths on different links along a lightpath may use different wavelengths on different links along
skipping to change at page 4, line 41 skipping to change at page 4, line 41
to be considered in all lightpath computation. to be considered in all lightpath computation.
In this document we first review the processes for routing and In this document we first review the processes for routing and
wavelength assignment (RWA) used when wavelength continuity wavelength assignment (RWA) used when wavelength continuity
constraints are present and then specify requirements for PCEP to constraints are present and then specify requirements for PCEP to
support RWA. Requirements for Optical impairments will be addressed support RWA. Requirements for Optical impairments will be addressed
in a separate document. in a separate document.
The remainder of this document uses terminology from [RFC4655]. The remainder of this document uses terminology from [RFC4655].
1.1. WSON RWA Processes 2. WSON RWA Processes & Architecture
In [RFC6163] three alternative process architectures were given for In [RFC6163] three alternative process architectures were given for
performing routing and wavelength assignment. These are shown performing routing and wavelength assignment. These are shown
schematically in Figure 1. schematically in 0.
+-------------------+ +-------------------+
| +-------+ +--+ | +-------+ +--+ +-------+ +---+ | +-------+ +--+ | +-------+ +--+ +-------+ +---+
| |Routing| |WA| | |Routing|--->|WA| |Routing|--->|DWA| | |Routing| |WA| | |Routing|--->|WA| |Routing|--->|DWA|
| +-------+ +--+ | +-------+ +--+ +-------+ +---+ | +-------+ +--+ | +-------+ +--+ +-------+ +---+
| Combined | Separate Processes Separate Processes | Combined | Separate Processes Separate Processes
| Processes | WA performed in a | Processes | WA performed in a
+-------------------+ Distributed manner +-------------------+ Distributed manner
(a) (b) (c) (a) (b) (c)
skipping to change at page 5, line 40 skipping to change at page 5, line 40
addressed in this document. addressed in this document.
3. Routing and distributed Wavelength Assignment (R+DWA) - Here a 3. Routing and distributed Wavelength Assignment (R+DWA) - Here a
standard path computation (unaware of detailed wavelength standard path computation (unaware of detailed wavelength
availability) takes place, then wavelength assignment is availability) takes place, then wavelength assignment is
performed along this path in a distributed manner via signaling performed along this path in a distributed manner via signaling
(RSVP-TE). This alternative should be covered by existing or (RSVP-TE). This alternative should be covered by existing or
emerging GMPLS PCEP extensions and does not present new WSON emerging GMPLS PCEP extensions and does not present new WSON
specific requirements. specific requirements.
2. WSON PCE Architectures and Requirements
In the previous section various process architectures for In the previous section various process architectures for
implementing RWA have been reviewed. Figure 2 shows one typical PCE implementing RWA have been reviewed. Figure 2 shows one typical PCE
based implementation, which is referred to as Combined Process based implementation, which is referred to as Combined Process
(R&WA). With this architecture, the two processes of routing and (R&WA). With this architecture, the two processes of routing and
wavelength assignment are accessed via a single PCE. This wavelength assignment are accessed via a single PCE. This
architecture is the base architecture from which the requirements architecture is the base architecture from which the requirements
are specified in this document. are specified in this document.
+----------------------------+ +----------------------------+
+-----+ | +-------+ +--+ | +-----+ | +-------+ +--+ |
| | | |Routing| |WA| | | | | |Routing| |WA| |
| PCC |<----->| +-------+ +--+ | | PCC |<----->| +-------+ +--+ |
| | | | | | | |
+-----+ | PCE | +-----+ | PCE |
+----------------------------+ +----------------------------+
Figure 2. Combined Process (R&WA) architecture Figure 2. Combined Process (R&WA) architecture
2.1. RWA PCC to PCE Interface 3. Requirements
The requirements for the PCC to PCE interface of Figure 2 are The requirements for the PCC to PCE interface of Figure 2 are
specified in this section. specified in this section.
2.1.1. RWA Computation Type and Wavelength Assignment Option 3.1. Path Computation Type Option
1. The PCReq Message MUST include the path computation type. This 1. A PCEP request MUST include the path computation type. This can
can be: be:
(i) Both Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA), or (i) Both Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA), or
(ii) Routing only. (ii) Routing only.
This requirement is needed to differentiate between the currently This requirement is needed to differentiate between the currently
supported routing with distributed wavelength assignment option and supported routing with distributed wavelength assignment option and
combined RWA. In case of distributed wavelength assignment option, combined RWA. In case of distributed wavelength assignment option,
wavelength assignment will be performed at each node of the route. wavelength assignment will be performed at each node of the route.
2. When the PCReq Message is RWA path computation type, the PCReq 3.2. RWA Processing
Message MUST further include the wavelength assignment options.
At the minimum, the following option should be supported:
(i) Explicit Label Control (ELC) [RFC4003] 1. When the request is a RWA path computation type, the request
MUST further include the wavelength assignment options. At the
minimum, the following option should be supported:
(ii) Non-Explicit labels in the form of Label Sets (This will (i) Explicit Label Control (ELC) [RFC4003]
allow Distributed WA at a node level where each node would
select the wavelength from the Label Sets)
3. The PCRep Message MUST include the route, wavelengths assigned to (ii) A set of recommended labels. The PCC can select the
the route and indication of which wavelength assignment option label based on local policy.
has been applied (ELC or Label Sets).
4. In the case where a valid path is not found, the PCRep Message Note that option ii) may also be used in R+WA or DWA.
MUST include why the path is not found (e.g., no route,
wavelength not found, optical quality check failed, etc.)
2.1.2. Bulk RWA path request/reply 2. In case of a RWA computation type, the response MUST include the
wavelength(s) assigned to the route and an indication of which
label assignment option has been applied (ELC or Label Sets).
1. The PCReq Message MUST be able to specify an option for bulk RWA 3. In the case where a valid path is not found, the response MUST
include why the path is not found (e.g., no route, wavelength not
found, optical quality check failed, etc.)
3.3. Bulk RWA Path Request/Reply
1. A PCEP request MUST be able to specify an option for bulk RWA
path request. Bulk path request is an ability to request a number path request. Bulk path request is an ability to request a number
of simultaneous RWA path requests. of simultaneous RWA path requests.
2. The PCRep Message MUST include the route, wavelength assigned to 2. The PCEP response MUST include the route, wavelength assigned to
the route for each RWA path request specified in the original the route for each RWA path request specified in the original
bulk PCReq Message. bulk request.
2.1.3. An RWA path re-optimization request/reply 3.4. RWA Path Re-optimization Request/Reply
1. For a re-optimization request, the PCReq Message MUST provide the 1. For a re-optimization request, the request MUST provide both the
path to be re-optimized and include the following options: route and current wavelength to be re-optimized and MAY include
the following options:
a. Re-optimize the path keeping the same wavelength(s) a. Re-optimize the path keeping the same wavelength(s)
b. Re-optimize wavelength(s) keeping the same path b. Re-optimize wavelength(s) keeping the same path
c. Re-optimize allowing both wavelength and the path to change c. Re-optimize allowing both wavelength and the path to change
2. The corresponding PCRep Message for the re-optimized request MUST 2. The corresponding response to the re-optimized request MUST
provide the Re-optimized path and wavelengths. provide the re-optimized path and wavelengths.
3. In case that the path is not found, the PCRep Message MUST 3. In case that the path is not found, the response MUST include why
include why the path is not found (e.g., no route, wavelength not the path is not found (e.g., no route, wavelength not found, both
found, both route and wavelength not found, etc.) route and wavelength not found, etc.)
2.1.4. Wavelength Range Constraint 3.5. Wavelength Range Constraint
For any PCReq Message that is associated with a request for For any RWA computation type request, the requester (PCC) MAY
wavelength assignment the requester (PCC) MUST be able to specify a specify a restriction on the wavelengths to be used.
restriction on the wavelengths to be used.
Note that the requestor (PCC) is NOT required to furnish any range Note that the requestor (PCC) is NOT required to furnish any range
restrictions. This restriction is to be interpreted by the PCE as a restrictions. This restriction is to be interpreted by the PCE as a
constraint on the tuning ability of the origination laser constraint on the tuning ability of the origination laser
transmitter. transmitter.
2.1.5. Wavelength Policy Constraint 3.6. Wavelength Assignment Preference
The PCReq Message May include specific operator's policy information 1. A RWA computation type request MAY include the requestor
for WA (E.g., random assignment, descending order, ascending order, preference for (E.g., random assignment, descending order,
etc.) ascending order, etc.) A response SHOULD follow the requestor
preference unless it conflicts with operator's policy.
The PCReq Message SHOULD be able to request, when requesting a 1+1 2. A request for 2 or more paths (e.g., 1+1 link disjoint paths) MUST
connection (e.g. link disjoint paths), that both paths use the same be able to specify an option constraining the path to have the
wavelength. same wavelength(s) assigned.
Note that this is extremely useful in the case of protection with Note that this is extremely useful in the case of protection with
single transponder. Now, there is no way to specify such constraint. single transponder.
The PCReq Message SHOULD be able to request, when performing 3R, In a network with wavelength conversion capabilities (e.g. sparse
that wavelength may change or not. 3R regenerators), a request SHOULD be able to indicate whether a
single, contiguous wavelength should be allocated or not. In other
words, the requesting PCC SHOULD be able to constrain the
wavelength continuity even if wavelength conversion is available.
2.1.6. Signal Processing Capability Restriction 3.7. Signal Processing Capability Restriction
The PCReq Message MUST be able to specify restrictions for signal A request MUST be able to specify restrictions for signal
compatibility either on the endpoint or any given link. The compatibility either on the endpoints or any given links. The
following signal processing capability should be supported at a following signal processing capabilities should be supported at a
minimum: minimum:
o Modulation Type List o Modulation Type List
o FEC Type List o FEC Type List
3. Manageability Considerations 4. Manageability Considerations
Manageability of WSON Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA) with Manageability of WSON Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA) with
PCE must address the following considerations: PCE must address the following considerations:
3.1. Control of Function and Policy 4.1. Control of Function and Policy
In addition to the parameters already listed in Section 8.1 of In addition to the parameters already listed in Section 8.1 of
[RFC5440], a PCEP implementation SHOULD allow configuring the [RFC5440], a PCEP implementation SHOULD allow configuring the
following PCEP session parameters on a PCC: following PCEP session parameters on a PCC:
o The ability to send a WSON RWA request. o The ability to send a WSON RWA request.
In addition to the parameters already listed in Section 8.1 of In addition to the parameters already listed in Section 8.1 of
[RFC5440], a PCEP implementation SHOULD allow configuring the [RFC5440], a PCEP implementation SHOULD allow configuring the
following PCEP session parameters on a PCE: following PCEP session parameters on a PCE:
skipping to change at page 9, line 19 skipping to change at page 9, line 27
o The support for WSON RWA. o The support for WSON RWA.
o The maximum number of bulk path requests associated with WSON o The maximum number of bulk path requests associated with WSON
RWA per request message. RWA per request message.
These parameters may be configured as default parameters for any These parameters may be configured as default parameters for any
PCEP session the PCEP speaker participates in, or may apply to a PCEP session the PCEP speaker participates in, or may apply to a
specific session with a given PCEP peer or a specific group of specific session with a given PCEP peer or a specific group of
sessions with a specific group of PCEP peers. sessions with a specific group of PCEP peers.
3.2. Information and Data Models, e.g. MIB module 4.2. Information and Data Models, e.g. MIB module
As this document only concerns the requirements to support WSON RWA, As this document only concerns the requirements to support WSON RWA,
no additional MIB module is defined in this document. However, the no additional MIB module is defined in this document. However, the
corresponding solution draft will list the information that should corresponding solution draft will list the information that should
be added to the PCE MIB module defined in [PCEP-MIB]. be added to the PCE MIB module defined in [PCEP-MIB].
3.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring 4.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness
detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already
listed in section 8.3 of [RFC5440]. listed in section 8.3 of [RFC5440].
3.4. Verifying Correct Operation 4.4. Verifying Correct Operation
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new
verification requirements in addition to those already listed in verification requirements in addition to those already listed in
section 8.4 of [RFC5440] section 8.4 of [RFC5440]
4.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components
3.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional
Components
The PCE Discovery mechanisms ([RFC5089] and [RFC5088]) may be used The PCE Discovery mechanisms ([RFC5089] and [RFC5088]) may be used
to advertise WSON RWA path computation capabilities to PCCs. to advertise WSON RWA path computation capabilities to PCCs.
3.6. Impact on Network Operation 4.6. Impact on Network Operation
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new network Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new network
operation requirements in addition to those already listed in operation requirements in addition to those already listed in
section 8.6 of [RFC5440]. section 8.6 of [RFC5440].
4. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
This document has no requirement for a change to the security models This document has no requirement for a change to the security models
within PCEP [RFC5440]. However the additional information within PCEP [RFC5440]. However the additional information
distributed in order to address the RWA problem represents a distributed in order to address the RWA problem represents a
disclosure of network capabilities that an operator may wish to keep disclosure of network capabilities that an operator may wish to keep
private. Consideration should be given to securing this information. private. Consideration should be given to securing this information.
5. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
This informational document does not make any requests for IANA This informational document does not make any requests for IANA
action. action.
6. Acknowledgments 7. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel for many helpful The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel for many helpful
comments that greatly improved the contents of this draft. comments that greatly improved the contents of this draft.
This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot. This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.
7. References 8. References
7.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching [RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471,
January 2003. January 2003.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label [RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol- Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-
skipping to change at page 11, line 25 skipping to change at page 11, line 29
September 2006. September 2006.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) communication Protocol", RFC 5440, March Element (PCE) communication Protocol", RFC 5440, March
2009. 2009.
[PCEP-MIB] Koushik, K, et al., "PCE communication protocol(PCEP) [PCEP-MIB] Koushik, K, et al., "PCE communication protocol(PCEP)
Management Information Base", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-mib, Management Information Base", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-mib,
work in progress. work in progress.
7.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[RFC6566] Lee, Y. and Bernstein, G. (Editors), D. Li and G. [RFC6566] Lee, Y. and Bernstein, G. (Editors), D. Li and G.
Martinelli "A Framework for the Control and Measurement of Martinelli "A Framework for the Control and Measurement of
Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSON) with Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSON) with
Impairments", RFC 6566, March 2012. Impairments", RFC 6566, March 2012.
[RFC6163] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein, W. Imajuku, "Framework for GMPLS [RFC6163] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein, W. Imajuku, "Framework for GMPLS
and PCE Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks", and PCE Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks",
RFC 6163, April 2011. RFC 6163, April 2011.
[RFC5088] Le Roux, JL., Ed., Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R. [RFC5088] Le Roux, JL., Ed., Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R.
Zhang, "OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Zhang, "OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation
Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5088, January 2008. Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5088, January 2008.
[RFC5089] Le Roux, JL., Ed., Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R. [RFC5089] Le Roux, JL., Ed., Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R.
Zhang, "IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Zhang, "IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path Computation
Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5089, January 2008. Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5089, January 2008.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Young Lee (Ed.) Young Lee (Ed.)
 End of changes. 49 change blocks. 
95 lines changed or deleted 98 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/