draft-ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro-01.txt   draft-ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro-02.txt 
TEAS C. Margaria, Ed. TEAS C. Margaria, Ed.
Internet-Draft Juniper Internet-Draft Juniper
Intended status: Standards Track G. Martinelli Intended status: Standards Track G. Martinelli
Expires: July 3, 2015 Cisco Expires: August 6, 2015 Cisco
S. Balls S. Balls
B. Wright B. Wright
Metaswitch Metaswitch
December 30, 2014 February 2, 2015
LSP Attribute in ERO LSP Attribute in ERO
draft-ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro-01 draft-ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro-02
Abstract Abstract
RFC5420 extends RSVP-TE to specify or record generic attributes which RFC5420 extends RSVP-TE to specify or record generic attributes which
apply to the whole of the path of an LSP. This document proposes an apply to the whole of the path of an LSP. This document defines an
extension to the RSVP ERO and RRO objects to allow it to specify or extension to the RSVP ERO and RRO objects to allow it to specify or
record generic attributes which apply to a given hop. record generic attributes which apply to a given hop.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted 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). 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 July 3, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 6, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 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 18 skipping to change at page 2, line 18
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. ERO Hop Attributes Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. ERO Hop Attributes Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. HOP Attributes TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2. HOP Attributes TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.3. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. RRO Hop Attributes Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. RRO Hop Attributes Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.1. Subobject presence rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2.1. Subobject presence rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.2. Reporting Compliance with ERO Hop Attributes . . . . 6 3.2.2. Reporting Compliance with ERO Hop Attributes . . . . 6
3.2.3. Compatibility with RRO Attributes subobject . . . . . 6 3.2.3. Compatibility with RRO Attributes subobject . . . . . 6
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. ERO LSP Attribute Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1. ERO Hop Attribute Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. RRO LSP Attribute Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.2. RRO LSP Attribute Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. Existing LSP Attribute TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.3. Existing Attribute Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.4. Existing LSP Attribute TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched
Paths (LSPs) can be route-constrained by making use of the Explicit Paths (LSPs) can be route-constrained by making use of the Explicit
Route object (ERO) and related sub-objects as defined in [RFC3209], Route object (ERO) and related sub-objects as defined in [RFC3209],
[RFC3473], [RFC3477], [RFC4873], [RFC4874], [RFC5520] and [RFC5553]. [RFC3473], [RFC3477], [RFC4873], [RFC4874], [RFC5520] and [RFC5553].
Several documents have identified the need for attributes that can be Several documents have identified the need for attributes that can be
targeted at specific hops in the path of an LSP, including [RFC6163], targeted at specific hops in the path of an LSP, including [RFC6163],
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling], [I-D.ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb] or [I-D.ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling], [I-D.ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb] or
skipping to change at page 4, line 13 skipping to change at page 4, line 16
in the ERO, MUST NOT be changed when a node processes the ERO and in the ERO, MUST NOT be changed when a node processes the ERO and
MUST be ignored on the node addressed by the preceding ERO MUST be ignored on the node addressed by the preceding ERO
subobjects. subobjects.
R This bit reflects the LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTE and LSP_ATTRIBUTE R This bit reflects the LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTE and LSP_ATTRIBUTE
semantic defined in [RFC5420]. When set it indicates required hop semantic defined in [RFC5420]. When set it indicates required hop
attributes to be processed by the node. When cleared, it attributes to be processed by the node. When cleared, it
indicates that the hop attributes are not required as described in indicates that the hop attributes are not required as described in
Section Section 2.3. Section Section 2.3.
Attributes TLVs as defined in Section 2.2 . Attributes TLVs as defined in Section 2.2.
2.2. HOP Attributes TLVs 2.2. HOP Attributes TLVs
ERO Attributes carried by the new objects defined in this document ERO Attributes carried by the new objects defined in this document
are encoded within TLVs. One or more TLVs MAY be present in each are encoded within TLVs. One or more TLVs MAY be present in each
object. There are no ordering rules for TLVs, and interpretation object. There are no ordering rules for TLVs, and interpretation
SHOULD NOT be placed on the order in which TLVs are received. The SHOULD NOT be placed on the order in which TLVs are received. The
TLV format is defined in [RFC5420] section 3. TLV format is defined in [RFC5420] section 3.
The Attribute Flags TLV defined in [RFC5420] MAY be carried in an ERO
Hop Attributes Subobject. Flags set in the an Attribute Flags TLV
[RFC5420] carried in a ERO Hop Attributes Subobject SHALL be
interpreted in the context of the received ERO. Only a subset of
defined flags are defined as valid for use in Attribute Flags TLV
carried in a ERO Hop Attributes Subobject. Invalid flags SHALL be
silently ignored. Unknown flags SHOULD trigger the generation of a
PathErr with Error Code "Unknown Attributes Bit" as defined in
[RFC5420] Section 5.2.
2.3. Procedures 2.3. Procedures
As described in [RFC3209] and [RFC3473] the ERO is managed as a list As described in [RFC3209] and [RFC3473] the ERO is managed as a list
where each hop information starts with a subobject identifying an where each hop information starts with a subobject identifying an
abstract node or link. The ERO Hop Attributes subobject MUST be abstract node or link. The ERO Hop Attributes subobject MAY be
appended after the existing subobjects defined in [RFC3209], appended after any of the existing subobjects defined in [RFC3209],
[RFC3473], [RFC3477], [RFC4873], [RFC4874], [RFC5520] and [RFC5553]. [RFC3473], [RFC3477], [RFC4873], [RFC4874], [RFC5520] and [RFC5553].
Several ERO Hop Attributes subobject MAY be present, for each hop. Several ERO Hop Attributes subobject MAY be present, for each hop.
Document defining specific Hop attribute TLV must describe after
which kind of subobject they are valid and if TLV modification rules
applies. For instance, subobject presence rules can be defined by
describing rules similar to [RFC4990] section 6.1.
If a node is processing an ERO Hop Attributes subobject and does not If a node is processing an ERO Hop Attributes subobject and does not
support handling of the subobject it will behave as described in support handling of the subobject it will behave as described in
[RFC3209] when an unrecognized ERO subobject is encountered. This [RFC3209] when an unrecognized ERO subobject is encountered. This
node will return a PathErr with error code "Routing Error" and error node will return a PathErr with error code "Routing Error" and error
value "Bad EXPLICIT_ROUTE object" with the EXPLICIT_ROUTE object value "Bad EXPLICIT_ROUTE object" with the EXPLICIT_ROUTE object
included, truncated (on the left) to the offending unrecognized included, truncated (on the left) to the offending unrecognized
subobject. subobject.
When the R bit is set a node MUST examine the attribute TLV present When the R bit is set a node MUST examine the attribute TLV present
in the subobject following the rules described in [RFC5420] section in the subobject following the rules described in [RFC5420] section
skipping to change at page 5, line 39 skipping to change at page 6, line 10
The Type and Length parameters are as defined in [RFC3209] section The Type and Length parameters are as defined in [RFC3209] section
4.4.1. The Type for the RRO Hop Attributes subobject is TBA by IANA. 4.4.1. The Type for the RRO Hop Attributes subobject is TBA by IANA.
The attributes TLV are encoded as defined in section Section 2.2. The attributes TLV are encoded as defined in section Section 2.2.
Reserved Reserved, must be set to 0 when the subobject is inserted Reserved Reserved, must be set to 0 when the subobject is inserted
in the RRO, MUST NOT be changed when a node process the RRO and in the RRO, MUST NOT be changed when a node process the RRO and
must be ignored on the node addressed by the preceding RRO must be ignored on the node addressed by the preceding RRO
subobjects. subobjects.
Attributes TLVs The processed or addition HOP Attributes, using the Attributes TLVs The processed or additional HOP Attributes, using
format defined in Section 2.2 . the format defined in Section 2.2.
3.2. Procedures 3.2. Procedures
3.2.1. Subobject presence rule 3.2.1. Subobject presence rule
The RRO rules defined in [RFC3209] are not changed. The RRO Hop The RRO rules defined in [RFC3209] are not changed. The RRO Hop
Attributes subobject MUST be pushed after the RRO Attributes Attributes subobject MUST be pushed after the RRO Attributes
subobject (if present) defined in in [RFC5420]. The RRO Hop subobject (if present) defined in in [RFC5420]. The RRO Hop
Attributes subobject MAY be present between a pair of subobjects Attributes subobject MAY be present between a pair of subobjects
identifying Label Switching Router (LSR) or links. All such identifying Label Switching Router (LSR) or links. Unless local
subobjects MUST be forwarded unmodified by transit LSRs. policy apply all such subobjects SHOULD be forwarded unmodified by
transit LSRs.
It is noted that a node (e.g. a domain edge node) may edit the RRO to
prune/modify the RRO, including the RRO Hop Attribute subobject
before forwarding due to confidentiality policy or other reasons (for
instance RRO size reduction).
3.2.2. Reporting Compliance with ERO Hop Attributes 3.2.2. Reporting Compliance with ERO Hop Attributes
To report that an ERO Hop attribute has been considered, or to report To report that an ERO Hop attribute has been considered, or to report
an additional attribute, an LSR MAY add a RRO Hop Attributes an additional attribute, an LSR MAY add a RRO Hop Attributes
subobject with the HOP Attribute TLV which describes the attribute to subobject with the HOP Attribute TLV which describes the attribute to
be reported. The requirement to report compliance MUST be specified be reported. The requirement to report compliance MUST be specified
in the document that defines the usage of an Hop attribute. in the document that defines the usage of an Hop attribute.
3.2.3. Compatibility with RRO Attributes subobject 3.2.3. Compatibility with RRO Attributes subobject
skipping to change at page 6, line 34 skipping to change at page 7, line 8
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES objects, a node SHOULD use the RRO Attributes LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES objects, a node SHOULD use the RRO Attributes
subobject to report processing of those attributes. subobject to report processing of those attributes.
For LSP attributes signaled in the ERO Hop Attributes subobject and For LSP attributes signaled in the ERO Hop Attributes subobject and
not in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES objects, if a not in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES objects, if a
node desires to report the attributes, it SHOULD use the RRO Hop node desires to report the attributes, it SHOULD use the RRO Hop
Attributes subobject and SHOULD NOT use the RRO Attributes subobject. Attributes subobject and SHOULD NOT use the RRO Attributes subobject.
Ingress nodes not supporting the RRO Hop Attributes subobject will Ingress nodes not supporting the RRO Hop Attributes subobject will
drop the information, as described in [RFC3209] section 4.4.5. drop the information, as described in [RFC3209] section 4.4.5.
A node MAY use the RRO Hop Attribute to report a LSP Attribute
signaled in LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES only if the
following conditions are met :
The Attribute and its corresponding flag is allowed on both the
LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES and LSP Hop Attributes
subobject.
The document defining this Attribute specify this specific
behavior.
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
4.1. ERO LSP Attribute Subobject 4.1. ERO Hop Attribute Subobject
IANA manages the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at IANA manages the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters/rsvp-parameters.xml. http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters/rsvp-parameters.xml.
We request IANA to make an allocation in the Sub-object type 20 We request IANA to make an allocation in the Sub-object type 20
EXPLICIT_ROUTE - Type 1 Explicit Route registry. EXPLICIT_ROUTE - Type 1 Explicit Route registry.
This document introduces a new ERO sub-object: This document introduces a new ERO sub-object:
Value Description Reference Value Description Reference
------ ----------------- ------------------------ ------ ----------------- ------------------------
TBA Hop Attributes This document, Section 2 TBA Hop Attributes This document, Section 2
4.2. RRO LSP Attribute Subobject 4.2. RRO LSP Attribute Subobject
IANA manages the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at IANA manages the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters/rsvp-parameters.xml. http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters/rsvp-parameters.xml.
We request IANA to make an allocation in the Sub-object type 21 We request IANA to make an allocation in the Sub-object type 21
ROUTE_RECORD - Type 1 Route Record registry. ROUTE_RECORD - Type 1 Route Record registry. We request the value to
be the same as Section 4.1.
This document introduces a new RRO sub-object: This document introduces a new RRO sub-object:
Value Description Reference Value Description Reference
------ ----------------- ------------------------ ------ ----------------- ------------------------
TBA Hop Attributes This document, Section 3 TBA Hop Attributes This document, Section 3
4.3. Existing LSP Attribute TLVs 4.3. Existing Attribute Flags
IANA manages the "Attribute Flags" registry as part of the "RSVP-TE
PARAMETERS" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-
te-parameters/rsvp-te-parameters.xml. A new column in the registry
is introduced by this document. This column indicates if the flag is
permitted to be used in a Attribute Flags TLV carried in the ERO Hop
Attributes Subobject. The column uses the heading "ERO" and the
registery is to be updated as follows:
Bit Name Attribute Attribute RRO ERO Reference
FlagsPath FlagsResv
0 End-to-end re-routing Yes No No No [RFC4920]
[RFC5420]
1 Boundary re-routing Yes No No No [RFC4920]
[RFC5420]
2 Segment-based re- Yes No No No [RFC4920]
routing
[RFC5420]
3 LSP Integrity Required Yes No No No [RFC4875]
4 Contiguous LSP Yes No Yes No [RFC5151]
5 LSP stitching desired Yes No Yes No [RFC5150]
6 Pre-Planned LSP Flag Yes No No No [RFC6001]
7 Non-PHP behavior flag Yes No Yes No [RFC6511]
8 OOB mapping flag Yes No Yes No [RFC6511]
9 Entropy Label Yes Yes No No [RFC6790]
Capability
10 OAM MEP entities Yes Yes Yes No [RFC7260]
desired
11 OAM MIP entities Yes Yes Yes No [RFC7260]
desired
12 SRLG collection Flag Yes Yes Yes No [I.D.draft-
(TEMPORARY - registered ietf-teas-
2014-09-11, expires rsvp-te-
2015-09-11) srlg-collect]
New allocation requests to this registry shall indicate the value to
be used in the ERO column.
4.4. Existing LSP Attribute TLVs
IANA manages the "RSVP-TE PARAMETERS" registry located at IANA manages the "RSVP-TE PARAMETERS" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-parameters/rsvp-te- http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-parameters/rsvp-te-
parameters.xml. The "Attributes TLV Space" registry manage the parameters.xml. The "Attributes TLV Space" registry manage the
following attributes, as defined in [RFC5420]: following attributes, as defined in [RFC5420]:
o TLV Type (T-field value) o TLV Type (T-field value)
o TLV Name o TLV Name
o Whether allowed on LSP_ATTRIBUTES object o Whether allowed on LSP_ATTRIBUTES object
o Whether allowed on LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object o Whether allowed on LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object
We request IANA to add the following information for each TLV in the We request IANA to add the following information for each TLV in the
RSVP TLV type identifier registry. RSVP TLV type identifier registry.
o Whether allowed on LSP Hop Attributes ERO subobject o Whether allowed on LSP Hop Attributes ERO subobject
skipping to change at page 7, line 49 skipping to change at page 9, line 26
following abbreviation are used in the table: following abbreviation are used in the table:
LSP_A Whether allowed on LSP_ATTRIBUTES object. LSP_A Whether allowed on LSP_ATTRIBUTES object.
LSP_RA Whether allowed on LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object. LSP_RA Whether allowed on LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object.
HOP_A Whether allowed on LSP Hop Attributes subobject. HOP_A Whether allowed on LSP Hop Attributes subobject.
T Name LSP_A LSP_RA HOP_A Ref. T Name LSP_A LSP_RA HOP_A Ref.
- --------------------- ----- ------ ----- -------- - --------------------- ----- ------ ----- --------
1 Attribute Flags Yes Yes No [RFC5420] 1 Attribute Flags Yes Yes Yes [RFC5420]
2 Service ID TLV Yes No No [RFC6060] 2 Service ID TLV Yes No No [RFC6060]
3 OAM Configuration TLV Yes Yes No [RFC7260] 3 OAM Configuration TLV Yes Yes No [RFC7260]
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
This document adds new subobject in the EXPLICIT_ROUTE and the This document adds new subobject in the EXPLICIT_ROUTE and the
ROUTE_RECORD object carried in RSVP message used in MPLS and GMPLS ROUTE_RECORD object carried in RSVP message used in MPLS and GMPLS
signaling. It builds on mechanism defined in [RFC3209] and [RFC5420] signaling. It builds on mechanism defined in [RFC3209] and [RFC5420]
and does not introduce any new security. The existing security and does not introduce any new security. The existing security
considerations described in [RFC2205], [RFC3209], [RFC3473] and considerations described in [RFC2205], [RFC3209], [RFC3473] and
[RFC5420] do apply. [RFC5420] do apply.
As any RSVP-TE signaling request, the procedures defined in this As any RSVP-TE signaling request, the procedures defined in this
document permit the transfer and reporting of functional preferences document permit the transfer and reporting of functional preferences
on specific node. This may reveal information about the LSP request on specific node. The mechanism added in this document does allow
and status to anyone with unauthorized access. The mechanism more control of LSP attributes at a given node. As other inputs, a
described in this document do not contribute to this issue, which can node should check the Hop Attributes against his policies and
be only resolved by encrypting the content of the whole signaling admission procedures. A node may reject the message using existing
message. RSVP error code like "Policy Control Failure" or "Admission Control
Failure". The node may also, depending on the specific TLV
procedures, modify the requested attribute. This may reveal
information about the LSP request and status to anyone with
unauthorized access. The mechanism described in this document do not
contribute to this issue, which can be only resolved by encrypting
the content of the whole signaling message.
In addition the reporting of attributes using the RRO may reveal In addition the reporting of attributes using the RRO may reveal
details about the node that the operator wishes to remains details about the node that the operator wishes to remains
confidential. The same strategy and policies that apply to other RRO confidential. The same strategy and policies that apply to other RRO
subobjects also apply to this new mechanism. It is recommended that subobjects also apply to this new mechanism. It is recommended that
domain boundary policies take the releasing of RRO hop attributes domain boundary policies take the releasing of RRO hop attributes
into consideration. into consideration.
6. Acknowledgments 6. Acknowledgments
skipping to change at page 9, line 20 skipping to change at page 11, line 5
in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, January 2003. (RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, January 2003.
[RFC4873] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., and A. Farrel, [RFC4873] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., and A. Farrel,
"GMPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, May 2007. "GMPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, May 2007.
[RFC4874] Lee, CY., Farrel, A., and S. De Cnodder, "Exclude Routes - [RFC4874] Lee, CY., Farrel, A., and S. De Cnodder, "Exclude Routes -
Extension to Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Extension to Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 4874, April 2007. Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 4874, April 2007.
[RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Papadimitriou, D., and S. Yasukawa,
"Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE Label
Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875, May 2007.
[RFC4920] Farrel, A., Satyanarayana, A., Iwata, A., Fujita, N., and
G. Ash, "Crankback Signaling Extensions for MPLS and GMPLS
RSVP-TE", RFC 4920, July 2007.
[RFC5150] Ayyangar, A., Kompella, K., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel,
"Label Switched Path Stitching with Generalized
Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (GMPLS
TE)", RFC 5150, February 2008.
[RFC5151] Farrel, A., Ayyangar, A., and JP. Vasseur, "Inter-Domain
MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering -- Resource Reservation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC
5151, February 2008.
[RFC5420] Farrel, A., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, JP., and A. [RFC5420] Farrel, A., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, JP., and A.
Ayyangarps, "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP Ayyangarps, "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP
Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 5420, February 2009. Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 5420, February 2009.
[RFC5520] Bradford, R., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel, "Preserving [RFC5520] Bradford, R., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel, "Preserving
Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path Computation Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path Computation
Using a Path-Key-Based Mechanism", RFC 5520, April 2009. Using a Path-Key-Based Mechanism", RFC 5520, April 2009.
[RFC5553] Farrel, A., Bradford, R., and JP. Vasseur, "Resource [RFC5553] Farrel, A., Bradford, R., and JP. Vasseur, "Resource
Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Extensions for Path Key Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Extensions for Path Key
Support", RFC 5553, May 2009. Support", RFC 5553, May 2009.
[RFC6001] Papadimitriou, D., Vigoureux, M., Shiomoto, K., Brungard,
D., and JL. Le Roux, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Protocol
Extensions for Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks (MLN/
MRN)", RFC 6001, October 2010.
[RFC6060] Fedyk, D., Shah, H., Bitar, N., and A. Takacs, [RFC6060] Fedyk, D., Shah, H., Bitar, N., and A. Takacs,
"Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Control "Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Control
of Ethernet Provider Backbone Traffic Engineering (PBB- of Ethernet Provider Backbone Traffic Engineering (PBB-
TE)", RFC 6060, March 2011. TE)", RFC 6060, March 2011.
[RFC6511] Ali, Z., Swallow, G., and R. Aggarwal, "Non-Penultimate
Hop Popping Behavior and Out-of-Band Mapping for RSVP-TE
Label Switched Paths", RFC 6511, February 2012.
[RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and
L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",
RFC 6790, November 2012.
[RFC7260] Takacs, A., Fedyk, D., and J. He, "GMPLS RSVP-TE [RFC7260] Takacs, A., Fedyk, D., and J. He, "GMPLS RSVP-TE
Extensions for Operations, Administration, and Maintenance Extensions for Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
(OAM) Configuration", RFC 7260, June 2014. (OAM) Configuration", RFC 7260, June 2014.
7.2. Informative References 7.2. Informative References
[I-D.ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound] [I-D.ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound]
Ali, Z., Swallow, G., Filsfils, C., Fang, L., Kumaki, K., Ali, Z., Swallow, G., Filsfils, C., Fang, L., Kumaki, K.,
Kunze, R., Ceccarelli, D., and X. Zhang, "Resource Kunze, R., Ceccarelli, D., and X. Zhang, "Resource
ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
skipping to change at page 10, line 14 skipping to change at page 12, line 32
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling] [I-D.ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling]
Bernstein, G., Xu, S., Lee, Y., Martinelli, G., and H. Bernstein, G., Xu, S., Lee, Y., Martinelli, G., and H.
Harai, "Signaling Extensions for Wavelength Switched Harai, "Signaling Extensions for Wavelength Switched
Optical Networks", draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-09 Optical Networks", draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-09
(work in progress), September 2014. (work in progress), September 2014.
[I-D.ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb] [I-D.ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb]
Dong, J., Chen, M., Li, Z., and D. Ceccarelli, "GMPLS Dong, J., Chen, M., Li, Z., and D. Ceccarelli, "GMPLS
RSVP-TE Extensions for Lock Instruct and Loopback", draft- RSVP-TE Extensions for Lock Instruct and Loopback", draft-
ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb-01 (work in progress), December ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb-03 (work in progress), January
2014. 2015.
[I-D.ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect]
Zhang, F., Dios, O., Li, D., Margaria, C., Hartley, M.,
and Z. Ali, "RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting SRLG
Information", draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-00
(work in progress), December 2014.
[I-D.kern-ccamp-rsvpte-hop-attributes] [I-D.kern-ccamp-rsvpte-hop-attributes]
Kern, A. and A. Takacs, "Encoding of Attributes of LSP Kern, A. and A. Takacs, "Encoding of Attributes of LSP
intermediate hops using RSVP-TE", draft-kern-ccamp-rsvpte- intermediate hops using RSVP-TE", draft-kern-ccamp-rsvpte-
hop-attributes-00 (work in progress), October 2009. hop-attributes-00 (work in progress), October 2009.
[RFC4990] Shiomoto, K., Papneja, R., and R. Rabbat, "Use of
Addresses in Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Networks", RFC 4990, September 2007.
[RFC6163] Lee, Y., Bernstein, G., and W. Imajuku, "Framework for [RFC6163] Lee, Y., Bernstein, G., and W. Imajuku, "Framework for
GMPLS and Path Computation Element (PCE) Control of GMPLS and Path Computation Element (PCE) Control of
Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs)", RFC 6163, Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs)", RFC 6163,
April 2011. April 2011.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Cyril Margaria (editor) Cyril Margaria (editor)
Juniper Juniper
200 Somerset Corporate Boulevard, , Suite 4001 200 Somerset Corporate Boulevard, , Suite 4001
 End of changes. 27 change blocks. 
36 lines changed or deleted 156 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/