draft-ietf-teas-network-assigned-upstream-label-01.txt   draft-ietf-teas-network-assigned-upstream-label-02.txt 
CCAMP Working Group Vishnu Pavan Beeram (Ed) TEAS Working Group Vishnu Pavan Beeram (Ed)
Internet Draft Juniper Networks Internet Draft Juniper Networks
Intended status: Standards Track Igor Bryskin (Ed) Intended status: Standards Track
ADVA Optical Networking
Expires: September 05, 2015 March 05, 2015 Expires: April 19, 2016 October 19, 2015
Network Assigned Upstream-Label Network Assigned Upstream-Label
draft-ietf-teas-network-assigned-upstream-label-01 draft-ietf-teas-network-assigned-upstream-label-02
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), 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 34 skipping to change at page 1, line 33
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 September 05, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 19, 2016.
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 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
warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Abstract Abstract
This document discusses a GMPLS RSVP-TE protocol mechanism that This document discusses a GMPLS (Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
enables the network to assign an upstream-label for a given LSP. Switching) RSVP-TE (Resource reSerVation Protocol with Traffic
This is useful in scenarios where a given node does not have Engineering) protocol mechanism that enables the network to assign
sufficient information to assign the correct upstream-label on its an upstream label for a bidirectional LSP. This is useful in
own and needs to rely on the network to pick an appropriate label. scenarios where a given node does not have sufficient information to
assign the correct upstream label on its own and needs to rely on
the downstream node to pick an appropriate label.
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 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119].
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................2 1. Introduction...................................................2
2. Use-Case: Alien Wavelength Setup...............................3 2. Use-Case: Alien Wavelength Setup...............................3
3. The "crank-back" approach......................................3 3. The "Crank-Back" Approach......................................3
4. Symmetric Labels...............................................5 4. Symmetric Labels...............................................5
5. Unassigned Upstream Label......................................5 5. Unassigned Upstream Label......................................5
5.1. Processing Rules..........................................5 5.1. Processing Rules..........................................5
5.2. Backwards Compatibility...................................6 5.2. Backwards Compatibility...................................6
6. Applicability..................................................6 6. Applicability..................................................7
6.1. Initial Setup.............................................7 6.1. Initial Setup.............................................7
6.2. Wavelength Change.........................................8 6.2. Wavelength Change.........................................8
7. Security Considerations........................................8 7. Security Considerations........................................8
8. IANA Considerations............................................8 8. IANA Considerations............................................8
9. Normative References...........................................8 9. References.....................................................9
10. Acknowledgments...............................................8 9.1. Normative References......................................9
9.2. Informative References....................................9
10. Acknowledgments...............................................9
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The GMPLS RSVP-TE extensions for setting up a Bidirectional LSP are The GMPLS (Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching) RSVP-TE
discussed in [RFC3473]. The Bidirectional LSP setup is indicated by (Resource reSerVation Protocol with Traffic Engineering) extensions
the presence of an UPSTREAM_LABEL Object in the PATH message. As per for setting up a bidirectional LSP are discussed in [RFC3473]. The
the existing setup procedure outlined for a Bidirectional LSP, each bidirectional LSP setup is indicated by the presence of an
upstream-node must allocate a valid upstream-label on the outgoing UPSTREAM_LABEL Object in the PATH message. As per the existing setup
interface before sending the initial PATH message downstream. procedure outlined for a bidirectional LSP, each upstream node must
However, there are certain scenarios where it is not desirable or allocate a valid upstream label on the outgoing interface before
possible for a given node to pick the upstream-label on its own. sending the initial PATH message downstream. However, there are
This document defines the protocol mechanism to be used in such certain scenarios where it is not desirable or possible for a given
scenarios. This mechanism enables a given node to offload the task node to pick the upstream label on its own. This document defines
of assigning the upstream-label for a given LSP onto the network. the protocol mechanism to be used in such scenarios. This mechanism
enables a given node to offload the task of assigning the upstream
label for a given bidirectional LSP onto the network.
2. Use-Case: Alien Wavelength Setup 2. Use-Case: Alien Wavelength Setup
Consider the network topology depicted in Figure 1. Nodes A and B Consider the network topology depicted in Figure 1. Nodes A and B
are client IP routers that are connected to an optical WDM transport are client IP routers that are connected to an optical WDM transport
network. F, H and I represent WDM nodes. The transponder sits on the network. F, H and I represent WDM nodes. The transponder sits on the
router and is directly connected to the add-drop port on a WDM node. router and is directly connected to the add-drop port on a WDM node.
The optical signal originating on "Router A" is tuned to a The optical signal originating on "Router A" is tuned to a
particular wavelength. On "WDM-Node F", it gets multiplexed with particular wavelength. On "WDM-Node F", it gets multiplexed with
skipping to change at page 3, line 35 skipping to change at page 3, line 39
| |
| +---+ /-\ | +---+ /-\
| | | Router ( ) WDM | | | Router ( ) WDM
| +---+ Node \-/ node | +---+ Node \-/ node
|________________________________ |________________________________
+---+ /-\ /-\ /-\ +---+ +---+ /-\ /-\ /-\ +---+
| A |---------( F )---------( H )---------( I )---------| B | | A |---------( F )---------( H )---------( I )---------| B |
+---+ \-/ \-/ \-/ +---+ +---+ \-/ \-/ \-/ +---+
Figure 1: Sample topology Figure 1: Sample Topology
3. The "crank-back" approach 3. The "Crank-Back" Approach
There are currently no GMPLS RSVP-TE protocol mechanisms that an There are currently no GMPLS RSVP-TE protocol mechanisms that an
upstream-node can use for indicating that it does not know what upstream node can use for indicating that it does not know what
upstream-label to use and that it needs the downstream-node to pick upstream label to use and that it needs the downstream node to pick
the label on its behalf. the label on its behalf.
The following setup sequence is an attempt to address the above use- The following setup sequence is an attempt to address the above use-
case using existing protocol mechanisms: case using the crank-back approach supported by GMPLS RSVP-TE:
+---+ /-\ /-\ +---+ +---+ /-\ /-\ +---+
| A |----------------( F ) ~~~~~~~~~ ( I )----------------| B | | A |----------------( F ) ~~~~~~~~~ ( I )----------------| B |
+---+ \-/ \-/ +---+ +---+ \-/ \-/ +---+
PATH PATH
Upstream Label (any available value) Upstream Label (any available value)
---------------------> --------------------->
PATH-ERROR PATH-ERR
Routing problem/Unacceptable Label Value Routing problem/Unacceptable Label Value
Acceptable Label Set (L1, L2 .. Ln) Acceptable Label Set (L1, L2 .. Ln)
<--------------------- <---------------------
PATH PATH
Upstream Label (L2) Upstream Label (L2)
---------------------> --------------------->
-- ~~ -- ~~ --> -- ~~ -- ~~ -->
PATH PATH
--------------------> -------------------->
RESV RESV
<-------------------- <--------------------
<-- ~~ -- ~~ -- <-- ~~ -- ~~ --
RESV RESV
Label (Assigned) Label (Assigned)
<--------------------- <---------------------
Figure 2: Setup Sequence - Crank-back Approach Figure 2: Setup Sequence - Crank-back Approach
The above approach does sort of work, but there are a few obvious The above approach does work, but there are a few obvious concerns:
concerns:
- Since "Router-A" does not know which upstream-label to use, it - Since "Router-A" does not know which upstream label to use, it
picks some random label and signals it without programming its picks some random label and signals it without programming its
data-plane. As a result, the outgoing PATH message has no data-plane (this is a deviation from the UPSTREAM_LABEL processing
indication of whether the upstream-label has been installed along procedures outlined in [RFC3473]). As a result, the outgoing PATH
the data-path or not. message has no indication of whether the upstream label has been
installed along the data-path or not.
- If "Router-A" somehow correctly guesses (by sheer luck) an - If "Router-A" somehow correctly guesses (by sheer luck) an
acceptable upstream label upfront, the network may end up finding acceptable upstream label upfront, the network may end up finding
a path which is suboptimal (there could be a different acceptable a path which is suboptimal (there could be a different acceptable
upstream label which corresponds to a better path in the network) upstream label which corresponds to a better path in the network)
- The "Path-Error with Acceptable Label Set" retry approach is - The "PATH-ERR with Acceptable Label Set" retry approach is usually
usually used for exception handling. The above solution uses it used for exception handling. The above solution uses it for almost
for almost every single setup request (except in the rare scenario every single setup request (except in the rare scenario where the
where the appropriate upstream-label is guessed correctly). appropriate upstream label is guessed correctly).
- There is an awkward window between the time the network sends out - There is an awkward window between the time the network sends out
the Path-Error (with the ACCEPTABLE_LABEL_SET) and receives the the PATH-ERR message (with the ACCEPTABLE_LABEL_SET) and receives
corresponding Path (with the selected UPSTREAM_LABEL); this window the corresponding PATH message (with the selected UPSTREAM_LABEL);
opens up the possibility of the selected UPSTREAM_LABEL to be this window opens up the possibility of the selected
stale by the time the network receives the retry PATH. UPSTREAM_LABEL to be stale by the time the network receives the
retry PATH.
- The above solution assumes the use of "symmetric labels" by - The above solution assumes the use of "symmetric labels" by
default. default.
The rest of the sections in this draft discuss a solution proposal The rest of the sections in this draft present a solution proposal
that is devoid of any of the above concerns. that is devoid of any of the above concerns.
4. Symmetric Labels 4. Symmetric Labels
As per [RFC3471], the upstream-label and the downstream-label for an As per [RFC3471], the upstream label and the downstream label for an
LSP at a given hop need not be the same. The use-case discussed in LSP at a given hop need not be the same. The use-case discussed in
this document pertains to Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) LSPs and it is this document pertains to Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) LSPs and it is
an undocumented fact that in practice, LSC LSPs always have an undocumented fact that in practice, LSC LSPs always have
symmetric labels at each hop along the path of the LSP. symmetric labels at each hop along the path of the LSP.
The use of the protocol mechanism discussed in this document The use of the protocol mechanism discussed in this document
mandates "Label Symmetry". This mechanism is meant to be used only mandates "Label Symmetry". This mechanism is meant to be used only
for Bidirectional LSPs that assign Symmetric Labels at each hop for bidirectional LSPs that assign symmetric labels at each hop
along the path of the LSP. along the path of the LSP.
5. Unassigned Upstream Label 5. Unassigned Upstream Label
This document proposes the use of a special label value - This document proposes the use of a special label value -
"0xFFFFFFFF" - to indicate an Unassigned Label. The presence of this "0xFFFFFFFF" - to indicate an Unassigned Upstream Label. The
value in the UPSTREAM_LABEL object of a PATH message indicates that presence of this value in the UPSTREAM_LABEL object of a PATH
the upstream-node has not assigned an upstream label on its own and message indicates that the upstream node has not assigned an
has requested the downstream-node to provide a label that it can use upstream label on its own and has requested the downstream node to
in both forward and reverse directions. The presence of this value provide a label that it can use in both forward and reverse
in the UPSTREAM LABEL object of a PATH message can also be directions. The presence of this value in the UPSTREAM_LABEL object
interpreted as a request to mandate "symmetric labels" for the LSP of a PATH message MUST also be interpreted by the receiving node as
at the given hop. a request to mandate "symmetric labels" for the LSP.
5.1. Processing Rules 5.1. Processing Rules
The Unassigned Upstream Label is used by an upstream-node when it is The Unassigned Upstream Label is used by an upstream node when it is
not in a position to pick the upstream label on its own. In such a not in a position to pick the upstream label on its own. In such a
scenario, the upstream-node sends a PATH message downstream with an scenario, the upstream node sends a PATH message downstream with an
Unassigned Upstream Label and requests the downstream-node to Unassigned Upstream Label and requests the downstream node to
provide a symmetric label. If the upstream-node desires to make the provide a symmetric label. If the upstream node desires to make the
downstream-node aware of its limitations with respect to label downstream node aware of its limitations with respect to label
selection, it has the option to specify a list of valid labels via selection, it MUST specify a list of valid labels via the LABEL_SET
the LABEL_SET object. object as specified in [RFC3473].
In response, the downstream-node picks an appropriate symmetric In response, the downstream node picks an appropriate symmetric
label and sends it via the LABEL object in the RESV message. The label and sends it via the LABEL object in the RESV message. The
upstream-node would then start using this symmetric label for both upstream node would then start using this symmetric label for both
directions of the LSP. If the downstream-node cannot pick the directions of the LSP. If the downstream node cannot pick the
symmetric label, it MUST issue a PATH-ERR message with a "Routing symmetric label, it MUST issue a PATH-ERR message with a "Routing
Problem/Unacceptable Label Value" indication. Problem/Unacceptable Label Value" indication.
The upstream-node will continue to signal the Unassigned Upstream The upstream node will continue to signal the Unassigned Upstream
Label in the PATH message even after it receives an appropriate Label in the PATH message even after it receives an appropriate
symmetric label in the RESV message. This is done to make sure that symmetric label in the RESV message. This is done to make sure that
the downstream-node would pick a symmetric label if and when it the downstream node would pick a different symmetric label if and
needs to change the RESV label at a later point in time. when it needs to change the label at a later point in time.
+----------+ +------------+ +----------+ +------------+
---| Upstream |--------------------| Downstream |--- ---| Upstream |--------------------| Downstream |---
+----------+ +------------+ +----------+ +------------+
PATH PATH
Upstream Label (Unassigned) Upstream Label (Unassigned)
Label-Set (L1, L2 ... Ln) Label-Set (L1, L2 ... Ln)
-------------------> ------------------->
RESV RESV
Label (Assigned - L2) Label (Assigned - L2)
<------------------- <-------------------
Figure 3: Unassigned UPSTREAM_LABEL Figure 3: Unassigned UPSTREAM_LABEL
5.2. Backwards Compatibility 5.2. Backwards Compatibility
If the downstream-node is running an older implementation (which may If the downstream node is running an older implementation and
be using the "crank-back" approach discussed in Section 3) and
doesn't understand the semantics of an Unassigned UPSTREAM LABEL, it doesn't understand the semantics of an Unassigned UPSTREAM LABEL, it
will either (a) reject the special label value and generate an error will either (a) reject the special label value and generate an error
or (b) accept it and treat it as a valid label. as specified in Section 3.1 of [RFC3473] or (b) accept it and treat
it as a valid label.
If the behavior that is exhibited is (a), then there are obviously If the behavior that is exhibited is (a), then there are obviously
no backwards compatibility concerns. Ingress implementations may no backwards compatibility concerns. If there is some existing
even choose to adopt the "crank-back" approach in such cases. If implementation that exhibits the behavior in (b), then there could
there is some existing implementation that exhibits the behavior in be some potential issues. However, at the time of publication, there
(b), then there could be some potential issues. The use-case is no documented evidence of any existing implementation that uses
discussed in this draft pertains to LSC LSPs and it is safe to 0xFFFFFFFF as a valid label. Thus, it is safe to assume that the
assume that the behavior in (b) will not be exhibited for such LSPs. behavior in (b) will never be exhibited.
6. Applicability 6. Applicability
Let us revisit the "alien wavelength" use-case discussed in Section The use-case discussed in Section 2 is revisited to examine how the
2 and examine how the mechanism proposed in this document allows the mechanism proposed in this document allows the optical network to
optical network to select and communicate the correct wavelength to select and communicate the correct wavelength to its clients.
its clients.
6.1. Initial Setup 6.1. Initial Setup
+---+ /-\ /-\ +---+ +---+ /-\ /-\ +---+
| A |----------------( F ) ~~~~~~~~~ ( I )----------------| B | | A |----------------( F ) ~~~~~~~~~ ( I )----------------| B |
+---+ \-/ \-/ +---+ +---+ \-/ \-/ +---+
PATH PATH
Upstream Label (Unassigned) Upstream Label (Unassigned/0xFFFFFFFF)
---------------------> --------------------->
-- ~~ -- ~~ --> -- ~~ -- ~~ -->
PATH PATH
--------------------> -------------------->
RESV RESV
<-------------------- <--------------------
<-- ~~ -- ~~ -- <-- ~~ -- ~~ --
RESV RESV
Label (Assigned) Label (Assigned)
<--------------------- <---------------------
Figure 4: Alien Wavelength - Initial Setup Figure 4: Alien Wavelength - Initial Setup
Steps: Steps:
- "Router A" does not have enough information to pick an - "Router A" does not have enough information to pick an
appropriate client wavelength. It sends a PATH downstream appropriate client wavelength. It sends a PATH message
requesting the network to assign an appropriate symmetric label downstream requesting the network to assign an appropriate
for it to use. Since the client wavelength is unknown, the symmetric label for its use. Since the client wavelength is
laser is off at the ingress client. unknown, the laser is off at the ingress client.
- The network receives the PATH, chooses the appropriate - The downstream node (Node F) receives the PATH message, chooses
wavelength values and forwards them in appropriate label fields the appropriate wavelength values and forwards them in
to the egress client ("Router B") appropriate label fields to the egress client ("Router B")
- "Router B" receives the PATH, turns the laser ON and tunes it - "Router B" receives the PATH message, turns the laser ON and
to the appropriate wavelength (received in the tunes it to the appropriate wavelength (received in the
UPSTREAM_LABEL/LABEL_SET of the PATH) and sends out a RESV UPSTREAM_LABEL/LABEL_SET of the PATH) and sends out a RESV
upstream. message upstream.
- The RESV received by the ingress client carries a valid
- The RESV message received by the ingress client carries a valid
symmetric label in the LABEL object. "Router A" turns on the symmetric label in the LABEL object. "Router A" turns on the
laser and tunes it to the wavelength specified in the network laser and tunes it to the wavelength specified in the network
assigned symmetric LABEL. assigned symmetric LABEL.
For cases where the egress-node relies on RSVP signaling to For cases where the egress-node relies on RSVP signaling to
determine exactly when to start using the LSP, this draft recommends determine exactly when to start using the LSP, this draft recommends
integrating the above sequence with any of the existing graceful integrating the above sequence with any of the existing graceful
setup procedures: setup procedures:
- "RESV-CONF" setup procedure (or) - "RESV-CONF" setup procedure (or)
- 2-step "ADMIN STATUS" based setup procedure ("A" bit set in the - 2-step "ADMIN STATUS" based setup procedure ("A" bit set in the
first step; "A" bit cleared when the LSP is ready for use). first step; "A" bit cleared when the LSP is ready for use).
6.2. Wavelength Change 6.2. Wavelength Change
After the LSP is set up, the network MAY decide to change the After the LSP is set up, the network MAY decide to change the
wavelength for the given LSP. This could be for a variety of reasons wavelength for the given LSP. This could be for a variety of reasons
- policy reasons, restoration within the core, preemption etc. - policy reasons, restoration within the core, preemption etc.
In such a scenario, if the ingress client receives a changed label In such a scenario, if the ingress client receives a changed label
via the LABEL object in a RESV modify, it SHOULD retune the laser at via the LABEL object in a RESV modify, it MUST retune the laser at
the ingress to the new wavelength. Similarly if the egress client the ingress to the new wavelength. Similarly if the egress client
receives a changed label via UPSTREAM_LABEL/LABEL_SET in a PATH receives a changed label via UPSTREAM_LABEL/LABEL_SET in a PATH
modify, it SHOULD retune the laser at the egress to the new modify, it MUST retune the laser at the egress to the new
wavelength. wavelength. If the node receiving the changed label in a PATH/RESV
message does not find the label acceptable, then the corresponding
error procedures defined in [RFC3473] MUST be followed.
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
This document introduces no new security considerations. This document defines a special label value to be carried in the
UPSTREAM_LABEL object of a PATH message. This special label value is
used to enable the function of requesting network assignment of an
upstream label. The changes proposed in this document pertain to the
semantics of a specific field in an existing RSVP object and the
corresponding procedures. Thus, there are no new security
implications raised by this document.
For a general discussion on MPLS and GMPLS related security issues,
see the MPLS/GMPLS security framework [RFC5920].
8. IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
This document makes no requests for IANA action. This document makes no requests for IANA action.
9. Normative References 9. References
9.1. 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
Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, January Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, January
2003 2003
[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching [RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
Signaling Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Signaling Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. Engineering Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
10. Acknowledgments 10. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Xian Zhang and Chris The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel and Chris Bowers for
Bowers for their inputs. their inputs.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Vishnu Pavan Beeram Vishnu Pavan Beeram
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
Email: vbeeram@juniper.net Email: vbeeram@juniper.net
John Drake John Drake
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
Email: jdrake@juniper.net Email: jdrake@juniper.net
skipping to change at line 394 skipping to change at page 10, line 19
Ericsson Ericsson
Email: daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com Email: daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com
Oscar Gonzalez de Dios Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
Telefonica Telefonica
Email: ogondio@tid.es Email: ogondio@tid.es
Zafar Ali Zafar Ali
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: zali@cisco.com Email: zali@cisco.com
Xian Zhang
Huawei Technologies
Email: zhang.xian@huawei.com
 End of changes. 46 change blocks. 
107 lines changed or deleted 131 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/