Internet-Draft Tomohiro Otani (Editor)
Intended status: Informational Kenichi Ogaki (Editor)
Expires: May 2008 KDDI R&D Labs
Daniel King(Editor)
Aria Networks
November 19 2007
Considering Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic
Engineering Attributes During Path Computation
Document: draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-cspf-constraints-07.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document provides guidelines for the consideration of
Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Traffic-Engineering
(TE) attributes for computation of routes for Label Switched Paths
(LSPs) in a GMPLS network.
This document summarizes how GMPLS TE attributes on ingress
links, transit links, and egress links may be treated as path
computation constraints to determine the route of a GMPLS Label
Switched Path (LSP).
T. Otani et al. Expires May 2008 1
Internet Drafts draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-cspf-constraints-07.txt
November 2007
Table of Contents
Status of this Memo..................................................1
Abstract.............................................................1
1. Introduction......................................................3
2. Problem Statements................................................3
3. Assumed Network Model.............................................4
4. Path Computation Considerations...................................6
5. Security consideration...........................................13
6. Acknowledgements.................................................14
7. Intellectual Property Considerations.............................14
8. IANA Considerations..............................................15
9. References.......................................................15
T. Otani et al. Expires May 2008 [Page 2]
Internet Drafts draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-cspf-constraints-07.txt
November 2007
1. Introduction
A network is, in general, controlled and managed taking into account
various attributes of the underlying technologies of the physical and
logical links and nodes. In a network operated using Generalized
Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) protocols, many of these
Traffic Engineering (TE) attributes are advertised using routing
protocols [RFC3945], [RFC4202].
To establish a GMPLS Label Switched Path (LSP) it is necessary
to compute a route or path for that LSP either hop-by-hop or by the
pre-calculation of part or all of the path. In order that the route
selected is capable of satisfying the requirements of the user or
application that will use the LSP the computation must be constrained
by a set of LSP-specific requirements and the TE attributes
advertised within the network. Further, considerations of technology
and node or link capabilities may also provide restrictions to the
feasibility of LSP establishment on certain routes, and this can be
deduced from the TE attributes advertised within the network and used
by the path computation algorithms to select only viable routes.
In a mixed, integrated network (for example, one containing
optical switches and packet routers) these constraints may vary and
are understood differently for different equipment and different LSPs.
This document provides guidelines to facilitate path computation for
GMPLS LSPs by summarizing how GMPLS TE attributes on ingress links,
transit links, and egress links may be treated as path computation
constraints to determine the route of a GMPLS Label Switched Path
(LSP).
2. Problem Statements
A GMPLS network is assumed to be composed of different switching
capabilities for nodes and different encoding types for TE links.
Such a GMPLS network is usually deployed by adopting multiple vendors
and each vendor usually has each constraint for a CSPF path
calculation and then a problem appears that a signaling message
including a calculated route at an ingress node may be rejected at a
transit node and the path creation may fail because of the difference
of the constraint for a CSPF path calculation between these nodes.
In an example network as shown in Figure 1, when ingress Router1
calculates a path to egress Router2 without considering the encoding
type for transit TE links and sends path message to PXC1, PXC1
returns path error message to Router1 because PXC1 cannot
crossconnect from ethernet encoding link to sonet/sdh encoding link.
In this case, if ingress Router1 can calculate with the exact match
for all the links through the ingress node to the egress node, the
path can be established.
T. Otani et al. Expires May 2008 [Page 3]
Internet Drafts draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-cspf-constraints-07.txt
November 2007
Router1--(Ethernet)--PXC1--(SONET/SDH)--PXC2--(Ethernet)--Router2
*(): Encoding type
Figure 1: example network1
On the other hand, when a network includes optical switching nodes
such as ROADMs which have a link with the encoding type of lambda
between nodes as shown in Figure2 and ingress Router1 calculate with
the exact match through all the links, the path calculation will fail.
In this environment, even if the encoding type of ingress and egress
links is different from transit links, the path should be established.
Therefore, constraints for various cases of path calculation must be
clearly defined.
Router1 Router3
\ /
\ /
(Ethernet) (Ethernet)
\ /
\ /
ROADM1--(Lambda)--ROADM2--(Lambda)--ROADM3
/ \
/ \
(SONET/SDH) (SONET/SDH)
/ \
/ \
Router2 Router4
Figure 2: example network2
3. Assumed Network Model
3.1 GMPLS TE Attributes Consideration for Path Calculation
For path computation to establish GMPLS LSPs correctly, various GMPLS
attributes [RFC4202], [RFC4203] of links as well as nodes, as
indicated below, must be taken into account in a GMPLS network
environment in addition to TE attributes of packet based network
[RFC3630].
(1) Encoding-type: Synchronous Optical Network
(SONET)/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH), Lambda, Ethernet,
etc.
(2) Switching capability: Time Division Multiplex (TDM), Lambda,
Fiber, etc.
(3) Bandwidth: OC-192, OC-48, GbE, 10GbE, etc.
T. Otani et al. Expires May 2008 [Page 4]
Internet Drafts draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-cspf-constraints-07.txt
November 2007
These logical attributes have a very tight relationship with
underlying physical technologies such as SONET/SDH, Optical Transport
Network (OTN) or Ethernet in terms of links, and all-optical switches,
SONET/SDH-basis digital cross connect or electrical-basis optical
switches in terms of nodes. Therefore, the GMPLS LSPs must satisfy
logical constrains as well as corresponding physical constraints.
These constraints are sometimes differently understood among
different layers, and a logically computed GMPLS LSP may violate the
physical constraints, therefore, a consistent guideline to solve this
issue should be formulated.
3.2 Considered Network Model
Figure 3 depicts a typical GMPLS network, consisting of an ingress
link, a transit link as well as an egress link, to investigate a
consistent guideline for GMPLS path computation. Each link at each
interface has its own switching capability, encoding type and
bandwidth.
The consideration here is based on a single domain GMPLS network, but
the analysis maybe applicable to an inter-domain GMPLS networks.
Ingress Transit Egress
+-----+ link1-2 +-----+ link2-3 +-----+ link3-4 +-----+
|Node1|------------>|Node2|------------>|Node3|------------>|Node4|
| |<------------| |<------------| |<------------| |
+-----+ link2-1 +-----+ link3-2 +-----+ link4-3 +-----+
Figure 3: GMPLS Network Model
For the simplicity of the analysis in path consideration, the below
basic assumptions are made when the LSP is created.
(1) Switching capabilities (SC) of outgoing links from the
ingress and egress nodes (link1-2 and link4-3 in Figure 1)
must be consistent with each other.
(2) SC of all transit links including incoming links to the
ingress and egress nodes (link2-1 and link3-4) should be
consistent with switching type of a LSP to be created.
(3) Encoding-types of all transit links should be consistent
with encoding type of a LSP to be created.
A GMPLS network maybe a multi-layer network, which is composed of
multiple nodes with different switching capabilities and interface
encoding types. Therefore, a hierarchical structure may be considered
in path computation. In such a case, the combination between the
switching type and encoding type of a desired LSP, and those of all
transit links described as the table in following section may be
T. Otani et al. Expires May 2008 [Page 5]
Internet Drafts draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-cspf-constraints-07.txt
November 2007
acceptable. One of advertised multiple interface switching capability
descriptors for the same link [RFC4202] should be also appropriately
chosen as the attribute for the link.
Bandwidth of each TE link is maximum LSP bandwidth in interface
switching capability descriptor at the priority for a desired LSP
[RFC4203], and encoding-types of incoming and outgoing links on the
same interface (for example, link1-2 and link2-1) should be
consistent with each other.
In case that the network is comprised of numbered links and
unnumbered links [RFC3477], an ingress node, who is able to support
numbered links and unnumbered links may choose both links being part
of the same desired LSP.
4. Path Computation Considerations
In this section, we consider GMPLS constraints to be satisfied
in different cases of link attributes. When a LSP indicated in below
tables is created, the path computation must choose the route so as
to satisfy switching capability, encoding type and bandwidth at the
ingress link, transiting links and the egress link indicated in
columns next to the created LSP, considering underlying physical
constraints. Here, almost cases of GMPLS path computation
consideration are summarized in this document, however, some cases
will be added in a future version.
(1) TDM-Switch Capable
Table 1: Desired GMPLS Attributes in the Case of TDM-SC
+-------------+---------+------------+---------+------------------+
|LSP attribute|Ingress |Transit |Egress |Remarks |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+------------------+
| | |TDM | |TDM | |
| | +---------+ +---------+ |
|SC*|TDM |L2SC |TDM |L2SC | |
| | +---------+ +---------+ |
| | |PSC | |PSC | |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+ |
| |SONET/SDH|SONET/SDH|SONET/SDH |SONET/SDH|Specified in G.691|
| +---------+---------+------------+---------+ |
|Enc|Ethernet |Ethernet |SONET/SDH |Ethernet |Specified in IEEE |
| | | |or Ethernet | | |
| +---------+---------+------------+---------+ |
| |OTN* |OTN |OTN |OTN | |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+ |
|BW*|X |<=bw* |<=bw |<=bw | |
T. Otani et al. Expires May 2008 [Page 6]
Internet Drafts draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-cspf-constraints-07.txt
November 2007
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+------------------+
*SC in LSP means a desired switching type of LSP.
*OTN interfaces are equivalent to digital wrapper technology in this
document.
* BW is the desired bandwidth of the LSP
* bw is the bandwidth available on the link
In this case, since the interface with TDM SC supports sub-rate
switching, BW X can be equal to or less than bw of ingress, transit
and egress links, and must be larger than the minimum LSP bandwidth
in the interface switching capability descriptor. Sub-rate switching
is unsuited for a hierarchical LSP, because the lower-layer link
usually has larger granular bandwidth than that layer except PSC-x,
for example a TDM LSP with the desired bandwidth of OC-12 should not
use a lambda switching capable link with the bandwidth of OC-48 as a
transit link. In such a case, a lambda LSP as a forwarding adjacency
(FA) LSP is created on the lower (lambda) layer in advance, then the
FA-LSP [LSP-HIER] may be advertised as a TDM SC link.
(2) Lambda Switch Capable (LSC)
Table 2.1: The Case of End-Point(Ingress/Egress) Link Attributes
without Lambda Encoding
+-------------+---------+------------+---------+------------------+
|LSP attribute|Ingress |Transit |Egress |Remarks |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+------------------+
| | |LSC | |LSC | |
| | +---------+ +---------+ |
|SC |LSC |TDM |LSC |TDM | |
| | +---------+ +---------+ |
| | |L2SC | |L2SC | |
| | +---------+ +---------+ |
| | |PSC | |PSC | |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+[RFC4202] |
| |SONET/SDH|SONET/SDH|SONET/SDH |SONET/SDH|section 3.6, 3.9 |
| | | |or lambda | |Specified in G.691|
| +---------+---------+------------+---------+ |
|Enc|Ethernet |Ethernet |Ethernet |Ethernet |Specified in IEEE |
| | | |or lambda | | |
| +---------+---------+------------+---------+ |
| |OTN |OTN |OTN |OTN |Specified in G.709|
| | | |or lambda | | |
|---+---------+---------+------------+---------+ |
|BW |X |=bw |=bw |=bw | |
| | | |or *<=bw | | |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+------------------+
T. Otani et al. Expires May 2008 [Page 7]
Internet Drafts draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-cspf-constraints-07.txt
November 2007
If an interface supports only a specific bit-rate and format such as
SONET/SDH or Ethernet encoding, BW X must be equal to bw so as to
match bit-rate and its framing.
*In the case of an interface with a lambda encoding and a transparent
to bit-rate and framing, BW X must be equal to or less than bw.
Table 2.2: The Case of End-Point(Ingress/Egress) Link Attributes
with Lambda Encoding
+-------------+---------+------------+---------+------------------+
|LSP attribute|Ingress |Transit |Egress |Remarks |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+------------------+
| | |LSC | |LSC | |
| | +---------+ +---------+ |
|SC |LSC |TDM |LSC |TDM | |
| | +---------+ +---------+ |
| | |L2SC | |L2SC | |
| | +---------+ +---------+ |
| | |PSC | |PSC | |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+ |
| |lambda | |lambda | |[RFC4202] |
| +---------+ +------------+ |section 3.7, 3.10 |
|Enc|SONET/SDH| |SONET/SDH | |Specified in G.691|
| | | |or lambda | | |
| +---------+lambda +------------+lambda | |
| |Ethernet | |Ethernet | |Specified in IEEE |
| | | |or lambda | | |
| +---------+ +------------+ | |
| |OTN | |OTN | |Specified in G.709|
| | | |or lambda | | |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+ |
|BW |X |<=bw |=bw |<=bw | |
| | | |or *<=bw | | |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+------------------+
If an interface supports only a specific bit-rate and format such as
SONET/SDH or Ethernet encoding, BW X must be equal to bw so as to
match bit-rate and its framing.
*In the case of an interface with a lambda encoding and a transparent
to bit-rate and framing, BW X must be equal to or less than bw.
T. Otani et al. Expires May 2008 [Page 8]
Internet Drafts draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-cspf-constraints-07.txt
November 2007
Table 2.3: The Case of One End-Point (Ingress/Egress) Link
Attribute with Lambda Encoding
+-------------+---------+------------+---------+------------------+
|LSP attribute|Ingress |Transit |Egress |Remarks |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+------------------+
| | |LSC | |LSC | |
| | +---------+ +---------+ |
|SC |LSC |TDM |LSC |TDM | |
| | +---------+ +---------+ |
| | |L2SC | |L2SC | |
| | +---------+ +---------+ |
| | |PSC | |PSC | |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+[RFC4202] |
| |SONET/SDH| |SONET/SDH |SONET/SDH|section 3.6, 3.9 |
| | | |or lambda | |Specified in G.691|
| +---------+ +------------+---------+ |
|Enc|Ethernet |lambda |Ethernet |Ethernet |Specified in IEEE |
| | | |or lambda | | |
| +---------+ +------------+---------+ |
| |OTN | |OTN |OTN |Specified in G.709|
| | | |or lambda | | |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+ |
|BW |X |<=bw |=bw |=bw | |
| | | |or *<=bw | | |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+------------------+
The case of ingress link with the specific encoding and egress link
with lambda encoding also follows the same manner.
If an interface supports only a specific bit-rate and format such as
SONET/SDH or Ethernet encoding, BW X must be equal to bw so as to
match bit-rate and its framing.
*In the case of an interface with a lambda encoding and a transparent
to bit-rate and framing, BW X must be equal to or less than bw.
T. Otani et al. Expires May 2008 [Page 9]
Internet Drafts draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-cspf-constraints-07.txt
November 2007
(3) Fiber Switch Capable (FSC)
Table 3.1: The Case of End-Point(Ingress/Egress) Link Attributes
without Lambda or Fiber Encoding
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+------------------+
|LSP attribute|Ingress |Transit |Egress |Remarks |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+------------------+
| | |FSC | |FSC | |
| | +---------+ +---------+ |
| | |LSC | |LSC | |
| | +---------+ +---------+ |
|SC |FSC |TDM |FSC |TDM | |
| | +---------+ +---------+ |
| | |L2SC | |L2SC | |
| | +---------+ +---------+ |
| | |PSC | |PSC | |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+[RFC4202] |
|Enc|SONET/SDH|SONET/SDH|SONET/SDH |SONET/SDH|section 3.6, 3.9 |
| | | |or lambda | |Specified in G.691|
| | | |or fiber | | |
| +---------+---------+------------+---------+ |
| |Ethernet |Ethernet |Ethernet |Ethernet |Specified in IEEE |
| | | |or lambda | | |
| | | |or fiber | | |
| +---------+---------+------------+---------+ |
| |OTN |OTN |OTN |OTN |Specified in G.709|
| | | |or lambda | | |
| | | |or fiber | | |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+ |
|BW |X |=bw |=bw |=bw | |
| | | |or *<=bw | | |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+------------------+
If an interface supports only a specific bit-rate and format such as
SONET/SDH or Ethernet encoding, BW X must be equal to bw so as to
match bit-rate and its framing.
T. Otani et al. Expires May 2008 [Page 10]
Internet Drafts draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-cspf-constraints-07.txt
November 2007
*In the case of an interface with a lambda or fiber encoding and a
transparent to bit-rate and framing, BW X must be equal to or less
than bw.
Table 3.2: The Case of End-Point(Ingress/Egress) Link Attributes with
Lambda or Fiber Encoding
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+------------------+
|LSP attribute|Ingress |Transit |Egress |Remarks |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+------------------+
| | |FSC | |FSC | |
| | +---------+ +---------+ |
| | |LSC | |LSC | |
| | +---------+ +---------+ |
|SC |FSC |TDM |FSC |TDM | |
| | +---------+ +---------+ |
| | |L2SC | |L2SC | |
| | +---------+ +---------+ |
| | |PSC | |PSC | |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+[RFC4202] |
| |fiber |fiber |fiber |fiber |section 3.8 |
| +---------+---------+------------+---------+ |
|Enc|lambda | |lambda | |section 3.7, 3.10 |
| | | |or fiber | | |
| +---------+ +------------+ |section 3.6, 3.9 |
| |SONET/SDH| |SONET/SDH | |Specified in G.691|
| | | |or lambda | | |
| | |lambda |or fiber |lambda | |
| +---------+or fiber +------------+or fiber | |
| |Ethernet | |Ethernet | |Specified in IEEE |
| | | |or lambda | | |
| | | |or fiber | | |
| +---------+ +------------+ | |
| |OTN | |OTN | |Specified in G.709|
| | | |or lambda | | |
| | | |or fiber | | |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+ |
|BW |X |<=bw |=bw |<=bw | |
| | | |or *<=bw | | |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+------------------+
T. Otani et al. Expires May 2008 [Page 11]
Internet Drafts draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-cspf-constraints-07.txt
November 2007
If an interface supports only a specific bit-rate and format such as
SONET/SDH or Ethernet encoding, BW X must be equal to bw so as to
match bit-rate and its framing.
*In the case of an interface with a lambda or fiber encoding and a
transparent to bit-rate and framing, BW X must be equal to or less
than bw.
Table 3.3: The Case of One End-Point (Ingress/Egress) Link Attribute
with Lambda or Fiber Encoding
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+------------------+
|LSP attribute|Ingress |Transit |Egress |Remarks |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+------------------+
| | |FSC | |FSC | |
| | +---------+ +---------+ |
| | |LSC | |LSC | |
| | +---------+ +---------+ |
|SC |FSC |TDM |FSC |TDM | |
| | +---------+ +---------+ |
| | |L2SC | |L2SC | |
| | +---------+ +---------+ |
| | |PSC | |PSC | |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+[RFC4202] |
|Enc|SONET/SDH| |SONET/SDH |SONET/SDH|section 3.6, 3.9 |
| | | |or lambda | |Specified in G.691|
| | | |or fiber | | |
| +---------+ +------------+---------+ |
| |Ethernet |lambda |Ethernet |Ethernet |Specified in IEEE |
| | |or fiber |or lambda | | |
| | | |or fiber | | |
| +---------+ +------------+---------+ |
| |OTN | |OTN |OTN |Specified in G.709|
| | | |or lambda | | |
| | | |or fiber | | |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+ |
|BW |X |<=bw |=bw |=bw | |
| | | |or *<=bw | | |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+------------------+
The case of ingress link with the specific encoding and egress link
with lambda encoding also follows as the same manner.
T. Otani et al. Expires May 2008 [Page 12]
Internet Drafts draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-cspf-constraints-07.txt
November 2007
If an interface supports only a specific bit-rate and format such as
SONET/SDH or Ethernet encoding, BW X must be equal to bw so as to
match bit-rate and its framing.
*In the case of an interface with a lambda encoding and a transparent
to bit-rate and framing, BW X must be equal to or less than bw.
Although the interface with FSC can switch the entire contents to
another interface, this interface should only be used for optical
wavelength or waveband switching.
(4) Layer 2 Switch Capable (L2SC)
The guideline for the calculation must be created after the
definition and discussion about L2SW are settled down.
(5) Packet Switch Capable (PSC)
Table 4: Desired GMPLS Attributes in the case of PSC
+-------------+---------+------------+---------+------------------+
|LSP attribute|Ingress |Transit |Egress |Remarks |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+------------------+
|SC |PSC |PSC |PSC |PSC | |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+ |
|Enc|Packet |Packet |Packet |Packet | |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+ |
|BW |X |<=bw |<=bw |<=bw | |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+------------------+
Since the interface with PSC supports only packet-by-packet switching,
BW X must be equal to or less than bw, and must be larger than the
minimum LSP bandwidth.
These GMPLS constraints must be considered for computing paths and
creating GMPLS LSPs.
This document does not discuss domain based multilayer path
computation considerations where specific routing policies, which are
sometimes independent from the underlying domains and sometimes take
the underlying domains' policies into consideration, are required.
5. Security consideration
T. Otani et al. Expires May 2008 [Page 13]
Internet Drafts draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-cspf-constraints-07.txt
November 2007
Anything that can be done to change the output of a path
computation algorithm can significantly affect the operational
stability of a network, could force traffic to traverse undesirable
or costly links, and could place data into less secure parts of the
network. Therefore, the integrity of the path computation mechanism
is very significant in a GMPLS network.
The path computation algorithm, itself, and the mechanisms for
conveying computed paths to and between the LSRs in the network are
out of scope for this document. But misuse or confusion with respect
of the handling of the attributes described in this document could
leave a network open to various security attacks. In particular, if
there is a known mismatch between the interpretation or handling of
TE attributes within a network this might be exploited by an attacker
to cause disruption or to waste network resources in an integrated
multi-technology network. Therefore, network operators are
Recommended to use a consistent approach across the whole network.
6. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Adrian Farrel for his review of this document.
7. Intellectual Property Considerations
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of
any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be
claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology
described in this document or the extent to which any license under
such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent
that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights.
Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents
can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention
any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
T. Otani et al. Expires May 2008 [Page 14]
Internet Drafts draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-cspf-constraints-07.txt
November 2007
8. IANA Considerations
This document does not require any IANA consideration.
9. References
9.1 Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4202] K. Kompella and Y. Rekhter, "Routing Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching",
RFC4202, October 2005.
[RFC4203] K. Kompella and Y. Rekhter, "OSPF Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching",
RFC4203, October 2005.
9.2 Informative References
[RFC3477] K. Kompella and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered
Links in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC3477, January 2003.
[RFC3630] Katz, D., et al, "Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions
to OSPF Version 2", RFC3630, September 2003.
[RFC3945] E. Mannie, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
Architecture", RFC3945, October, 2004.
Author's Addresses
Tomohiro Otani
KDDI R&D Laboratories, Inc.
2-1-15 Ohara Fujimino-shi
Saitama, 356-8502 Japan
Phone: +81-49-278-7357
Email: otani@kddilabs.jp
Kenichi Ogaki
KDDI R&D Laboratories, Inc.
2-1-15 Ohara Fujimino-shi
Saitama, 356-8502 Japan
Phone: +81-49-278-7897
Email: ogaki@kddilabs.jp
Arthi Ayyangar
Nuova Systems
2600 San Tomas Expressway
Santa Clara, CA 95051
Email: arthi@nuovasystems.com
T. Otani et al. Expires May 2008 [Page 15]
Internet Drafts draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-cspf-constraints-07.txt
November 2007
Rajiv Papneja
Isocore
12359 Sunrise Valley Drive
Suite 100, Reston, VA 20191 US
Email: rpapneja@isocore.com
Kireeti Kompella
Juniper Networks
1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089 US
Email: kireeti@juniper.net
Daniel King
Aria Networks Ltd.
44-45 Market Place
Chippenham, SN153HU UK
EMail: daniel.king@aria-networks.com
Document expiration
This document will be expired in May 2008, unless it is updated.
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
T. Otani et al. Expires May 2008 [Page 16]