draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb-03.txt   draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb-04.txt 
Network Working Group J. Dong Network Working Group J. Dong
Internet-Draft M. Chen Internet-Draft M. Chen
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies
Expires: July 27, 2015 Z. Li Expires: August 30, 2015 Z. Li
China Mobile China Mobile
D. Ceccarelli D. Ceccarelli
Ericsson Ericsson
January 23, 2015 February 26, 2015
GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions for Lock Instruct and Loopback GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions for Lock Instruct and Loopback
draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb-03 draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb-04
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol- This document specifies extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol-
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) to support Lock Instruct (LI) and Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) to support Lock Instruct (LI) and
Loopback (LB) mechanisms for Label Switched Paths (LSPs). These Loopback (LB) mechanisms for Label Switched Paths (LSPs). These
mechanisms are applicable to technologies which use Generalized mechanisms are applicable to technologies which use Generalized
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) as control plane. Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) for the control plane.
Requirements Language Requirements Language
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].
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
skipping to change at page 1, line 44 skipping to change at page 1, line 44
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 27, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 30, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 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
skipping to change at page 2, line 26 skipping to change at page 2, line 26
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
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Flag Definitions for LI and LB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Flag Definitions for LI and LB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Lock Instruct Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Lock Instruct Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Extensions for Loopback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2. Extensions for Loopback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Operational Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Operational Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Lock Instruct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1. Lock Instruct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Loopback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2. Loopback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Attribute Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1. Attribute Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. RSVP Error Value Sub-codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.2. RSVP Error Value Sub-codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.3. Allocation Rule for ERO Subobjects . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The requirements for Lock Instruct (LI) and Loopback (LB) in The requirements for Lock Instruct (LI) and Loopback (LB) in the
Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) are Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) are
specified in [RFC5860], and the framework of LI and LB is specified specified in [RFC5860], and the framework of LI and LB is specified
in [RFC6371]. in [RFC6371]. An LSP that is locked, using LI, is prevented from
carrying user data traffic. The LB function can only be applied to
an LSP that has been previously locked.
In general the LI and LB are useful Operations, Administration and In general the LI and LB are useful Operations, Administration and
Maintenance (OAM) functions for technologies which use Generalized Maintenance (OAM) functions for technologies which use Generalized
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) as control plane, e.g. time- Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) for the control plane, e.g.,
division multiplexing, wavelength-division multiplexing and packet time-division multiplexing, wavelength-division multiplexing and
switching. It is natural to use and extend the GMPLS control plane packet switching. It is natural to use and extend the GMPLS control
protocol to provide a unified approach for LI and LB provisioning in plane protocol to provide a unified approach for LI and LB
all these technologies. provisioning in all these technologies.
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext] specifies the RSVP-TE [I-D.ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext] specifies the RSVP-TE
extensions for the configuration of pro-active MPLS-TP OAM functions, extensions for the configuration of pro-active MPLS-TP OAM functions,
such as Continuity Check (CC), Connectivity Verification (CV), Delay such as Continuity Check (CC), Connectivity Verification (CV), Delay
Measurement (DM) and Loss Measurement (LM). The provisioning of on- Measurement (DM) and Loss Measurement (LM). The provisioning of on-
demand OAM functions such as LI and LB are not covered in that demand OAM functions such as LI and LB are not covered in that
document. document.
This document specifies extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol- This document specifies extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol-
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) to support lock instruct and loopback Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) to support lock instruct and loopback
mechanisms for Label Switched Paths (LSPs). The mechanisms are mechanisms for Label Switched Paths (LSPs). The mechanisms are
applicable to technologies which use GMPLS as control plane. For applicable to technologies which use GMPLS for the control plane.
MPLS-TP network, the mechanisms defined in this document are For a network supporting MPLS-TP, the mechanisms defined in this
complementary to [RFC6435]. document are complementary to [RFC6435].
2. Flag Definitions for LI and LB 2. Flag Definitions for LI and LB
2.1. Lock Instruct Indication 2.1. Lock Instruct Indication
In order to indicate the lock/unlock of the LSP, the A In order to indicate the lock/unlock status of the LSP, the A
(Administratively down) bit in ADMIN_STATUS object [RFC3471] (Administratively down) bit in the Administrative Status
[RFC3473] is used. (ADMIN_STATUS) object [RFC3471] [RFC3473] is used.
2.2. Extensions for Loopback 2.2. Extensions for Loopback
In order to indicate the loopback mode of LSP, a new bit flag is In order to indicate the loopback mode of LSP, a new bit flag is
defined in the Attribute Flags TLV [RFC5420]. defined in the Attribute Flags TLV [RFC5420].
Loopback flag: Loopback flag:
This flag indicates a particular node on the LSP is required to This flag indicates a particular node on the LSP is required to
enter loopback mode. This can also be used for specifying the enter loopback mode. This can also be used for specifying the
loopback state of the node. loopback state of the node.
- Bit number: TBA - Bit number: TBA-1
- Attribute flag carried in Path message: Yes - Attribute flag carried in Path message: Yes
- Attribute flag carried in Resv message: No - Attribute flag carried in Resv message: No
- Attribute flag carried in RRO Attributes subobject: Yes - Attribute flag carried in RRO Attributes subobject: Yes
3. Operational Procedures 3. Operational Procedures
3.1. Lock Instruct 3.1. Lock Instruct
When an ingress node intends to put an LSP into lock mode, it MUST When an ingress node intends to put an LSP into lock mode, it MUST
send a Path message with the Administratively down (A) bit defined send a Path message with the Administratively down (A) bit used as
above and the Reflect (R) bit in ADMIN_STATUS Object set. specified above and the Reflect (R) bit in the ADMIN_STATUS Object
set.
On receipt of this Path message, the egress node SHOULD try to take On receipt of this Path message, the egress node SHOULD try to take
the LSP out of service. If the egress node locks the LSP the LSP out of service. If the egress node locks the LSP
successfully, it MUST send a Resv message with the A bit in successfully, it MUST send a Resv message with the A bit in the
ADMIN_STATUS object set. Otherwise, it MUST send a PathErr message ADMIN_STATUS object set. Otherwise, it MUST send a PathErr message
with the Error Code "OAM Problem" [RFC7260] and the new Error Value with the Error Code "OAM Problem" [RFC7260] and the new Error Value
"Lock Failure", and the following Resv messages MUST be sent with the "Lock Failure", and the following Resv messages MUST be sent with the
A bit cleared. A bit cleared.
When an LSP is put in lock mode, the subsequent Path and Resv When an LSP is put in lock mode, the subsequent Path and Resv
messages MUST keep the A bit in ADMIN_STATUS Object set. messages MUST keep the A bit in the ADMIN_STATUS Object set.
When the ingress node intends to take the LSP out of the lock mode, When the ingress node intends to take the LSP out of the lock mode,
it MUST send a Path message with the A bit in ADMIN_STATUS Object it MUST send a Path message with the A bit in the ADMIN_STATUS Object
cleared. cleared.
On receipt of this Path message, the egress node SHOULD try to bring On receipt of this Path message, the egress node SHOULD try to bring
the LSP back to service. If the egress node unlocks the LSP the LSP back to service. If the egress node unlocks the LSP
successfully, it MUST send a Resv message with the A bit in successfully, it MUST send a Resv message with the A bit in the
ADMIN_STATUS Object cleared. Otherwise, it MUST send a PathErr ADMIN_STATUS Object cleared. Otherwise, it MUST send a PathErr
message with the Error Code "OAM Problem" [RFC7260] and the new Error message with the Error Code "OAM Problem" [RFC7260] and the new Error
Value "Unlock Failure", and the following Resv messages MUST be sent Value "Unlock Failure", and the following Resv messages MUST be sent
with the A bit set. with the A bit set.
When an LSP is taken out of lock mode, the subsequent Path and Resv When an LSP is taken out of lock mode, the subsequent Path and Resv
messages MUST keep the A bit in ADMIN_STATUS Object cleared. messages MUST keep the A bit in the ADMIN_STATUS Object cleared.
3.2. Loopback 3.2. Loopback
The loopback request can be sent either to the egress node or to a The loopback request can be sent either to the egress node or to a
particular intermediate node. The mechanism defined in particular intermediate node. The mechanism defined in
[I-D.ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro] is used for addressing the loopback [I-D.ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro] is used for addressing the loopback
request to a particular node on the LSP. The ingress node MUST request to a particular node on the LSP. The ingress node MUST
ensure that the LSP is in lock mode before it requests setting a ensure that the LSP is in lock mode before it requests setting a
particular node on the LSP into loopback mode. particular node on the LSP into loopback mode.
When a ingress node intends to put a particular node on the LSP into When a ingress node intends to put a particular node on the LSP into
loopback mode, it MUST send a Path message with the Loopback loopback mode, it MUST send a Path message with the Loopback
Attribute Flag defined above in the Attribute Flags TLV set. The Attribute Flag defined above in the Attribute Flags TLV set. The
mechanism defined in [I-D.ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro] is used to mechanism defined in [I-D.ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro] is used to
address the loopback request to the particular node. The ingress address the loopback request to the particular node. The ingress
MUST ensure that the desired loopback mode is strictly identified in node MUST ensure that the entity (node or interface), at which
the ERO. The Administratively down (A) bit in ADMIN_STATUS object loopback is intended to occur, is marked as a strict hop in the
MUST be kept set to indicate that the LSP is still in lock mode. Explicit Route Object (ERO) subobject. The Administratively down (A)
bit in the ADMIN_STATUS object MUST be kept set to indicate that the
LSP is still in lock mode.
On receipt of this Path message, the target node of the loopback On receipt of this Path message, the target node of the loopback
request MUST check if the LSP is in lock mode by verifying that the request MUST check if the LSP is in lock mode by verifying that the
Administratively down (A) bit is set in the ADMIN_STATUS object. If Administratively down (A) bit is set in the ADMIN_STATUS object. If
the bit is not set, the loopback request MUST be ignored. If the bit the bit is not set, the loopback request MUST be ignored. If the bit
is set, the node MUST check that the desired loopback is strictly is set, the node MUST check that the desired loopback entity is
identified by verifying that the L bit is set to 0 in both the ERO strictly identified by verifying that the L bit is set to 0 in the
Hop Attributes subobject and the prior subobject. The prior ERO subobject prior to the ERO Hop Attributes subobject. The prior
subobject MUST also be checked to ensure that it provides strict subobject MUST also be checked to ensure that it provides strict
identification. Currently, the type value MUST be verified to be identification. Currently, the type value MUST be verified to be
less than 32, and for type values 1 and 2 the prefix length MUST be less than 32, and for type values 1 and 2, the prefix length MUST be
32 and 128 respectively. If the desired loopback is not strictly 32 and 128 respectively. If the desired loopback entity is not
identified, the request MUST be ignored and a "Bad EXPLICIT_ROUTE strictly identified, the request MUST be ignored and a "Bad
object" error SHOULD be generated. Otherwise, the node SHOULD try to EXPLICIT_ROUTE object" error SHOULD be generated. Otherwise, the
put the LSP into loopback mode. If the node puts the LSP into node SHOULD try to put the LSP into loopback mode. If the node puts
loopback mode successfully, it MUST set the Loopback Attribute Flag the LSP into loopback mode successfully, it MUST set the Loopback
if it adds, per [RFC5420], an Attributes subobject to the Attribute Flag if it adds, per [I-D.ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro], an
RECORD_ROUTE Object (RRO) of a Path or Resv message. The RRO Hop Attributes subobject to the RECORD_ROUTE Object (RRO) of a
Administratively down (A) bit in ADMIN_STATUS object MUST be kept set Path or Resv message. The Administratively down (A) bit in the
in the message. If the node cannot put the LSP into loopback mode, ADMIN_STATUS object MUST be kept set in the message. If the node
it MUST send a PathErr message with the Error Code "OAM Problem" cannot put the LSP into loopback mode, it MUST send a PathErr message
[RFC7260] and the new Error Value "Loopback Failure". with the Error Code "OAM Problem" [RFC7260] and the new Error Value
"Loopback Failure".
When the ingress node intends to take the particular node out of When the ingress node intends to take the particular node out of
loopback mode, it MUST send a Path message with the Loopback loopback mode, it MUST send a Path message with the Loopback
Attribute Flag in the Attribute Flags TLV cleared. The mechanism Attribute Flag in the Attribute Flags TLV cleared. The mechanism
defined in [I-D.ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro] is used to indicate that defined in [I-D.ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro] is used to indicate that
the particular node SHOULD exit loopback mode for this LSP. The the particular node SHOULD exit loopback mode for this LSP. The
Administratively down (A) bit in ADMIN_STATUS object MUST be kept set Administratively down (A) bit in the ADMIN_STATUS object MUST be kept
to indicate the LSP is still in lock mode. set to indicate the LSP is still in lock mode.
On receipt of this Path message, the target node SHOULD try to take On receipt of this Path message, the target node SHOULD try to take
the LSP out of loopback mode. If the node takes the LSP out of the LSP out of loopback mode. If the node takes the LSP out of
loopback mode successfully, it MUST clear the Loopback Attribute Flag loopback mode successfully, it MUST clear the Loopback Attribute Flag
in the RRO Attributes subobject and push this subobject onto the RRO in the RRO Hop Attributes subobject and push this subobject onto the
object in the corresponding Path or Resv message. The RRO object in the corresponding Path or Resv message. The
Administratively down (A) Bit in ADMIN_STATUS Object MUST be kept set Administratively down (A) Bit in the ADMIN_STATUS Object MUST be kept
in the message. Otherwise, the node MUST send a PathErr message with set in the message. Otherwise, the node MUST send a PathErr message
the Error Code "OAM Problem" [RFC7260] and the new Error Value "Exit with the Error Code "OAM Problem" [RFC7260] and the new Error Value
Loopback Failure". "Exit Loopback Failure".
After the loopback mode is cleared successfully, the ingress node MAY After the loopback mode is cleared successfully, the ingress node MAY
remove the Lock Instruct using the mechanism defined in section 3.1. remove the Lock Instruct using the mechanism defined in section 3.1.
The ingress node MUST NOT request to exit lock mode if the LSP is The ingress node MUST NOT request to exit lock mode if the LSP is
still in loopback mode. The egress node MUST ignore such request still in loopback mode. The egress node MUST ignore such request
when the LSP is still in loopback mode. when the LSP is still in loopback mode.
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to administer the assignment of new values defined IANA is requested to administer the assignment of new values defined
in this document and summarized in this section. in this document and summarized in this section.
4.1. Attribute Flags 4.1. Attribute Flags
IANA maintains a registry called "Resource Reservation Protocol- IANA maintains a registry called "Resource Reservation Protocol-
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Parameters" with a sub-registry called Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Parameters" with a sub-registry called
"Attribute Flags". "Attribute Flags".
IANA is requested to assign a new bit flag as follows: IANA is requested to assign a new bit flag as follows:
Bit | | Attribute | Attribute | | | Bit | | Attribute | Attribute | | |
No. | Name | Flags Path | Flags Resv | RRO | ERO | Reference No. | Name | Flags Path | Flags Resv | RRO | ERO | Reference
----+--------------+------------+------------+-----+-----+------------- -----+-----------+------------+------------+-----+-----+-------------
TBA | Loopback | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |this document TBA-1| Loopback | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |this document
4.2. RSVP Error Value Sub-codes 4.2. RSVP Error Value Sub-codes
IANA maintains a registry called "Resource Reservation Protocol IANA maintains a registry called "Resource Reservation Protocol
(RSVP) Parameters" with a sub-registry called "Error Codes and (RSVP) Parameters" with a sub-registry called "Error Codes and
Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes". Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes".
IANA is requested to assign four new Error Value sub-codes for the IANA is requested to assign four new Error Value sub-codes for the
"OAM Problem" Error Code: "OAM Problem" Error Code:
Value | Description | Reference Value | Description | Reference
-----------+-----------------------------+-------------- -----------+-----------------------------+--------------
TBA | Lock Failure | this document TBA-2 | Lock Failure | this document
TBA | Unlock Failure | this document TBA-3 | Unlock Failure | this document
TBA | Loopback Failure | this document TBA-4 | Loopback Failure | this document
TBA | Exit Loopback Failure | this document TBA-5 | Exit Loopback Failure | this document
4.3. Allocation Rule for ERO Subobjects
IANA maintains a registry called "Resource Reservation Protocol
(RSVP) Parameters" with a sub-registry called "Class Names, Class
Numbers, and Class Types".
For Explicit Route Object , the allocation rule for subobject types
in the range 5 - 31 (0x05 - 0x1F) needs to be updated as:
5-31 Unassigned (For explicit resource identification)
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce any new security issues above those This document does not introduce any new security issues above those
identified in [RFC3209] [RFC3473] and identified in [RFC3209] [RFC3473] and
[I-D.ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro]. For a more comprehensive [I-D.ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro]. For a more comprehensive
discussion of GMPLS security and attack mitigation techniques, please discussion of GMPLS security and attack mitigation techniques, please
see the Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks [RFC5920]. see the Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks [RFC5920].
In addition, the reporting of the loopback status using the RRO may
reveal details about the node that the operator wishes to remain
confidential. The privacy considerations as described in section 5,
paragraph 3 of [I-D.ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro] also apply to this
document.
6. Acknowledgements 6. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Greg Mirsky, Lou Berger and Francesco The authors would like to thank Greg Mirsky, Lou Berger and Francesco
Fondelli for their comments and suggestions. Fondelli for their comments and suggestions.
7. References 7. References
7.1. Normative References 7.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro] [I-D.ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro]
Margaria, C., Martinelli, G., Balls, S., and B. Wright, Margaria, C., Martinelli, G., Balls, S., and B. Wright,
"LSP Attribute in ERO", draft-ietf-teas-lsp-attribute- "LSP Attribute in ERO", draft-ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-
ro-01 (work in progress), December 2014. ro-02 (work in progress), February 2015.
[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.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[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,
skipping to change at page 7, line 46 skipping to change at page 8, line 25
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.ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext] [I-D.ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext]
Bellagamba, E., Takacs, A., Mirsky, G., Andersson, L., Bellagamba, E., Takacs, A., Mirsky, G., Andersson, L.,
Skoldstrom, P., and D. Ward, "Configuration of Pro-Active Skoldstrom, P., and D. Ward, "Configuration of Pro-Active
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
Functions for MPLS-based Transport Networks using RSVP- Functions for MPLS-based Transport Networks using RSVP-
TE", draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-15 (work in TE", draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-16 (work in
progress), January 2015. progress), January 2015.
[RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS [RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010. Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
[RFC6371] Busi, I. and D. Allan, "Operations, Administration, and [RFC6371] Busi, I. and D. Allan, "Operations, Administration, and
Maintenance Framework for MPLS-Based Transport Networks", Maintenance Framework for MPLS-Based Transport Networks",
RFC 6371, September 2011. RFC 6371, September 2011.
[RFC6435] Boutros, S., Sivabalan, S., Aggarwal, R., Vigoureux, M., [RFC6435] Boutros, S., Sivabalan, S., Aggarwal, R., Vigoureux, M.,
 End of changes. 32 change blocks. 
69 lines changed or deleted 94 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/