Skip to main content

draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-spc-grsvpte-ext-02.txt
draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-spc-grsvpte-ext-02

Document Type Expired Internet-Draft (individual)
Expired & archived
Authors Diego Caviglia , Dan Li
Last updated 2008-02-18
RFC stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state Expired
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)

This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:

Abstract

In a transport network scenario, where Data Plane connections controlled either by GMPLS (Soft Permanent Connections - SPC) or by Management System (Permanent Connections - PC) may independently coexist, the ability of transforming an existing PC into a SPC and vice versa - without actually affecting Data Plane traffic being carried over it - is a valuable option. This applies especially when a GMPLS based Control Plane is first introduced into an existing network and there may be the need, from a Carrier point of view, to pass under GMPLS control existing connections already set up over Data Plane. In other terms, such operation could be seen as a way of transferring the ownership and control of an existing and in-use Data Plane connection between the Management Plane and the Control Plane, leaving its Data Plane state untouched. This memo provides a minor extension to GRSVP-TE signaling protocol, within GMPLS architecture, to enable such connection ownership transfer and describes the proposed procedures. Conventions used in this document The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [1].

Authors

Diego Caviglia
Dan Li

(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)