Internet Draft                                         Lou Berger (LabN)
Category: Experimental                          Attila Takacs (Ericsson)
Expiration Date: April 12, 2008                Diego Caviglia (Ericsson)
                                                      Don Fedyk (Nortel)
                                          Julien Meuric (France Telecom)

                                                        October 12, 2007

             GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs

             draft-berger-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-01.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/1id-abstracts.html

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 12, 2008.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

Abstract

   This document defines a method for the support of GMPLS Asymmetric
   Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs.  The presented approach is applicable
   to any switching technology and builds on the original RSVP model for
   the transport of traffic related parameters.









Berger, et. al.               Experimental                      [Page 1]


Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-01.txt October 12, 2007


Contents

 1      Introduction  ..............................................   3
 1.1    Background  ................................................   3
 1.2    Approach Overview  .........................................   4
 1.3    Conventions used in this document  .........................   5
 2      Generalized Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs  .......   5
 2.1    UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object  ..................................   5
 2.1.1  Procedures  ................................................   5
 2.2    UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object  .....................................   6
 2.2.1  Procedures  ................................................   6
 2.3    UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object  ....................................   6
 2.3.1  Procedures  ................................................   6
 3      Packet Formats  ............................................   7
 4      Compatibility  .............................................   8
 5      IANA Considerations  .......................................   8
 5.1    UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object  ..................................   8
 5.2    UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object  .....................................   8
 5.3    UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object  ....................................   9
 6      Security Considerations  ...................................   9
 7      References  ................................................   9
 7.1    Normative References  ......................................   9
 7.2    Informative References  ....................................  10
 8      Author's Addresses  ........................................  10
 A      Appendix A: Alternate Approach Using ADSPEC Object  ........  11
 A.1    Applicability  .............................................  11
 A.2    Overview  ..................................................  12
 A.3    Procedures  ................................................  13
 A.4    Compatibility  .............................................  13
        Full Copyright Statement  ..................................  13
        Intellectual Property  .....................................  14











Berger, et. al.               Experimental                      [Page 2]


Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-01.txt October 12, 2007


Authors' Note - Changes from previous version:
 o Draft now targeted as experimental
 o Generic approach is now the proposed approach.
   (MEF-TRAFFIC approach is included as an appendix.)
 o Other minor edits.


1. Introduction

   GMPLS, see [RFC3473], introduced explicit support for bidirectional
   LSPs.  The defined support matched the switching technologies covered
   by GMPLS, notably TDM and lambdas, and specifically only supported
   bidirectional LSPs with symmetric bandwidth allocation.  Symmetric
   bandwidth requirements are conveyed using the semantics objects
   defined in [RFC2205] and [RFC2210].

   Recent work, see [GMPLS-PBBTE] and [MEF-TRAFFIC], has looked at
   extending GMPLS to control Ethernet switching.  In this context there
   has been discussion on the support of bidirectional LSPs with
   asymmetric bandwidth. This discussion motivated the extensions
   defined in this document, which may be used with any switching
   technology to signal asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSPs.


1.1. Background

   Bandwidth parameters are transported within RSVP (see [RFC2210],
   [RFC3209] and [RFC3473]) via several objects that are opaque to RSVP.
   While opaque to RSVP, these objects support a particular model for
   the communication of bandwidth information between an RSVP session
   sender (ingress) and receiver (egress).  The original model of
   communication defined in [RFC2205] and maintained in [RFC3209] used
   the SENDER_TSPEC and ADSPEC objects in Path messages and the FLOWSPEC
   object in Resv messages.  The SENDER_TSPEC object was used to
   indicate a sender's data generation capabilities.  The FLOWSPEC
   object was issued by the receiver and indicated the resources that
   should be allocated to the associated data traffic.  The ADSPEC
   object was used to inform the receiver and intermediate hops of the
   actual resources allocated for the associated data traffic.

   With the introduction of bidirectional LSPs in [RFC3473] the model of
   communication of bandwidth parameters was implicitly changed.  In the
   context of [RFC3473] bidirectional LSPs, the SENDER_TSPEC object
   indicates the desired resources for both upstream and downstream
   directions.  The FLOWSPEC object is simply confirmation of the
   allocated resources.  The definition of the ADSPEC object is either
   unmodified, and only has meaning for downstream traffic, or is
   implicitly or explicitly (see [RFC4606] and [MEF-TRAFFIC])



Berger, et. al.               Experimental                      [Page 3]


Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-01.txt October 12, 2007


   irrelevant.


1.2. Approach Overview

   The approach for supporting asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSPs
   defined in this document builds on the original RSVP model for the
   transport of traffic related parameters and GMPLS' support for
   bidirectional LSPs.  An alternative approach was considered and
   rejected.  For reference purposes only, the rejected approach is
   summarized in Appendix A.

   The defined approach is generic and can be applied to any switching
   technology supported by GMPLS.  With this approach, the existing
   SENDER_TSPEC, ADSPEC and FLOWSPEC objects are complemented with the
   addition of new UPSTREAM_TSPEC, UPSTREAM_ADSPEC and UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC
   objects.  The existing objects are used in the original fashion
   defined in [RFC2205] and [RFC2210], and refer only to traffic
   associated with the LSP flowing in the downstream direction.  The new
   objects are used in exactly the same fashion as the old objects, but
   refer to the upstream traffic flow. Figure 1 shows the bandwidth
   related objects used for Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs.

                        |---|        Path        |---|
                        | I |------------------->| E |
                        | n | -SENDER_TSPEC      | g |
                        | g | -ADSPEC            | r |
                        | r | -UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC | e |
                        | e |                    | s |
                        | s |        Resv        | s |
                        | s |<-------------------|   |
                        |   | -FLOWSPEC          |   |
                        |   | -UPSTREAM_TSPEC    |   |
                        |   | -UPSTREAM_ADSPEC   |   |
                        |---|                    |---|

         Figure 1: Generic Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs

   This extensions defined in this document are limited to P2P LSPs.
   Support for P2MP bidirectional LSPs is not currently defined and, as
   such, not covered in this document.










Berger, et. al.               Experimental                      [Page 4]


Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-01.txt October 12, 2007


1.3. 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].


2. Generalized Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs

   The setup of an asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP is signaled
   using the bidirectional procedures defined in [RFC3473] together with
   the inclusion of the new UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC, UPSTREAM_TSPEC and
   UPSTREAM_ADSPEC objects.

   The new upstream objects carry the same information and are used in
   the same fashion as the existing downstream objects; they only differ
   in that they relate to traffic flowing in the upstream direction
   while the existing objects relate to traffic flowing in the
   downstream direction.


2.1. UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object

   The format of an UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object is the same as a FLOWSPEC
   object.  This includes the definition of class types and their
   formats.  The class number of the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object object is
   TBA by IANA (of the form 0bbbbbbb).


2.1.1. Procedures

   The Path message of an asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP MUST
   contain an UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object and MUST use the bidirectional
   LSP formats and procedures defined in [RFC3473].  The C-Type of the
   UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object MUST match the C-Type of the SENDER_TSPEC
   object used in the Path message.  The contents of the
   UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object MUST be constructed using a consistent
   format and procedures used to construct the FLOWSPEC object that will
   be used for the LSP, e.g., [RFC2210] or [RFC4328].

   Nodes processing a Path message containing an UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC
   Object MUST use the contents of the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object in the
   upstream label and resource allocation procedure defined in Section
   3.1 of [RFC3473].  Consistent with [RFC3473], a node that is unable
   to allocate a label or internal resources based on the contents of
   the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object, MUST issue a PathErr message with a
   "Routing problem/MPLS label allocation failure" indication.




Berger, et. al.               Experimental                      [Page 5]


Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-01.txt October 12, 2007


2.2. UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object

   The format of an UPSTREAM_TSPEC object is the same as a SENDER_TSPEC
   object.  This includes the definition of class types and their
   formats.  The class number of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object object is TBA
   by IANA (of the form 0bbbbbbb).


2.2.1. Procedures

   The UPSTREAM_TSPEC object MUST be included in any Resv message that
   corresponds to a Path message containing an UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object.
   The C-Type of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object MUST match the C-Type of the
   corresponding UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object. The contents of the
   UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object MUST be constructed using a consistent format
   and procedures used to construct the FLOWSPEC object that will be
   used for the LSP, e.g., [RFC2210] or [RFC4328].  The contents of the
   UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object MAY differ from contents of the
   UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object based on application data transmission
   requirements.


2.3. UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object

   The format of an UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object is the same as an ADSPEC
   object.  This includes the definition of class types and their
   formats.  The class number of the UPSTREAM_ADSPEC  object is TBA by
   IANA (of the form 0bbbbbbb).


2.3.1. Procedures

   The UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object MAY be included in any Resv message that
   corresponds to a Path message containing an UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object.
   The C-Type of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object MUST be consistent with the
   C-Type of the corresponding UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object. The contents of
   the UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object MUST be constructed using a consistent
   format and procedures used to construct the ADSPEC object that will
   be used for the LSP, e.g., [RFC2210] or [MEF-TRAFFIC].  The
   UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object is processed using the same procedures as the
   ADSPEC object and as such, MAY be updated or added at transit nodes.










Berger, et. al.               Experimental                      [Page 6]


Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-01.txt October 12, 2007


3. Packet Formats

   This section presents the RSVP message related formats as modified by
   this section.  Unmodified formats are not listed.  Three new objects
   are defined in this section:

      Object name            Applicable RSVP messages
      ---------------        ------------------------
      UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC      Path and PathErr (via sender descriptor)
      UPSTREAM_TSPEC         Resv and Notify (via flow descriptor list)
      UPSTREAM_ADSPEC        Resv and Notify (via flow descriptor list)

   The format of the sender description for bidirectional asymmetric
   LSPs is:

      <sender descriptor> ::=  <SENDER_TEMPLATE> <SENDER_TSPEC>
                               [ <ADSPEC> ]
                               [ <RECORD_ROUTE> ]
                               [ <SUGGESTED_LABEL> ]
                               [ <RECOVERY_LABEL> ]
                               <UPSTREAM_LABEL>
                               <UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC>

   The format of the flow descriptor list for bidirectional asymmetric
   LSPs is:

      <flow descriptor list> ::= <FF flow descriptor list>
                               | <SE flow descriptor>

      <FF flow descriptor list> ::= <FLOWSPEC>
                               <UPSTREAM_TSPEC> [ <UPSTREAM_ADSPEC> ]
                               <FILTER_SPEC>
                               <LABEL> [ <RECORD_ROUTE> ]
                               | <FF flow descriptor list>
                               <FF flow descriptor>

      <FF flow descriptor> ::= [ <FLOWSPEC> ]
                               [ <UPSTREAM_TSPEC>] [ <UPSTREAM_ADSPEC> ]
                               <FILTER_SPEC> <LABEL>
                               [ <RECORD_ROUTE> ]

      <SE flow descriptor> ::= <FLOWSPEC>
                               <UPSTREAM_TSPEC> [ <UPSTREAM_ADSPEC> ]
                               <SE filter spec list>

      <SE filter spec list> is unmodified by this document.





Berger, et. al.               Experimental                      [Page 7]


Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-01.txt October 12, 2007


4. Compatibility

   This extension reuses and extends semantics and procedures defined in
   [RFC2205], [RFC3209] and [RFC3473] to support bidirectional LSPs with
   asymmetric bandwidth.  To indicate the use of asymmetric bandwidth
   three new objects are defined.  Each of these objects is defined with
   class numbers in the form 0bbbbbbb. Per [RFC2205], nodes not
   supporting this extension should not recognize the new class numbers
   and respond with an "Unknown Object Class" error.  The error message
   will propagate to the ingress which can then take action to avoid the
   path with the incompatible node, or may simply terminate the session.


5. IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to administer assignment of new values for
   namespaces defined in this section and reviewed in this subsection.

   Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the assignments
   described below in the "Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types"
   section of the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at
   http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters


5.1. UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object

   A new class named UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC will be created in the 0bbbbbbb
   range (TBD suggested) with the following definition:

      Class Types or C-types:

      Same values as FLOWSPEC object (C-Num 9)


5.2. UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object

   A new class named UPSTREAM_TSPEC will be created in the 0bbbbbbb
   range (TBD suggested) with the following definition:

      Class Types or C-types:

      Same values as SENDER_TSPEC object (C-Num 12)









Berger, et. al.               Experimental                      [Page 8]


Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-01.txt October 12, 2007


5.3. UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object

   A new class named UPSTREAM_ADSPEC will be created in the 0bbbbbbb
   range (TBD suggested) with the following definition:

      Class Types or C-types:

      Same values as ADSPEC object (C-Num 13)


6. Security Considerations

   This document introduces new message objects for use in GMPLS
   signaling [RFC3473].  It does not introduce any new signaling
   messages, nor change the relationship between LSRs that are adjacent
   in the control plane. As such, this document introduces no additional
   security considerations.  See [RFC3473] for relevant security
   considerations.


7. References

7.1. Normative References

   [MEF-TRAFFIC] Papadimitriou, D., "MEF Ethernet Traffic
                 Parameters,"
                 draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-traffic-parameters-02.txt,
                 Work in progress, June 2007.

   [RFC2205] Braden, R. Ed. et al, "Resource ReserVation Protocol
             -- Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205,
             September 1997.

   [RFC2210] Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated
             Services," RFC 2210, September 1997.

   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
             Requirement Levels," RFC 2119.

   [RFC3209] Awduche, et al, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for
             LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.

   [RFC3473] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
             Switching (GMPLS) Signaling - Resource ReserVation
             Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions",
             RFC 3473, January 2003.





Berger, et. al.               Experimental                      [Page 9]


Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-01.txt October 12, 2007


7.2. Informative References

   [GMPLS-PBBTE] Fedyk, D., et al "GMPLS control of Ethernet" ,
                 draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-01.txt, Work in
                 progress, May 2007.

   [RFC4606] Mannie, E., Papadimitriou, D., "Generalized
             Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for
             Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous
             Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control", RFC 4606, August 2006.

   [RFC4328] Papadimitriou, D., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol
             Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709
             Optical Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328, January
             2006.


8. Author's Addresses

   Lou Berger
   LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
   Email: lberger@labn.net

   Attila Takacs
   Ericsson
   1. Laborc u.
   1037 Budapest, Hungary
   Phone: +36-1-4377044
   Email: attila.takacs@ericsson.com

   Diego Caviglia
   Ericsson
   Via A. Negrone 1/A
   Genova-Sestri Ponente, Italy
   Phone: +390106003738
   Email: diego.caviglia@ericsson.com

   Don Fedyk
   Nortel Networks
   600 Technology Park Drive
   Billerica, MA, USA 01821
   Phone: +1-978-288-3041
   Email: dwfedyk@nortel.com








Berger, et. al.               Experimental                     [Page 10]


Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-01.txt October 12, 2007


   Julien Meuric
   France Telecom
   Research & Development
   2, avenue Pierre Marzin
   22307 Lannion Cedex - France
   Phone: +33 2 96 05 28 28
   Email: julien.meuric@orange-ftgroup.com


 A Appendix A: Alternate Approach Using ADSPEC Object

   This section is included for historic purposes and SHOULD NOT be
   implemented.


 A.1 Applicability

   This section presents an alternate method for the support of
   asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP establishment with a single
   RSVP-TE signaling session. This approach differs in applicability and
   generality from the approach presented in the main body of this
   document.

   The generalized asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP presented in
   the main body of this document has the benefit of being applicable to
   any switching technology, but requires support for three new types of
   object classes, i.e., the UPSTREAM_TSPEC, UPSTREAM_ADSPEC and
   UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC objects.

   The solution presented in this section is based on the Ethernet
   specific ADSPEC Object, and is referred to as the "ADSPEC Object"
   approach.  This approach limits applicability to cases where the
   [MEF-TRAFFIC] traffic parameters are appropriate, and to switching
   technologies that define no use for the ADSPEC object.  While
   ultimately it is this limited scope that has resulted in this
   approach being relegated to an Appendix, the semantics of this
   approach are quite simple in that they only require the definition of
   a new ADSPEC object C-Type.

   In summary, the "ADSPEC Object" approach presented in this section
   SHOULD NOT be implemented.










Berger, et. al.               Experimental                     [Page 11]


Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-01.txt October 12, 2007


 A.2 Overview

   The "ADSPEC Object" approach is specific to Ethernet and uses [MEF-
   TRAFFIC] traffic parameters.  This approach is not generic and is
   aimed at providing asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSPs for just
   Ethernet transport.  With this approach, the ADSPEC object carries
   the traffic parameters for the upstream data flow.  SENDER_TSPEC
   object is used to indicate the traffic parameters for the downstream
   data flow. The FLOWSPEC object provides confirmation of the allocated
   downstream resources.  Confirmation of the upstream resource
   allocation is a Resv message, as any resource allocation failure for
   the upstream direction will always result in a PathErr message.
   Figure 2 shows the bandwidth related objects used in the first
   approach.

                         |---|        Path      |---|
                         | I |----------------->| E |
                         | n | -SENDER_TSPEC    | g |
                         | g | -ADSPEC          | r |
                         | r |                  | e |
                         | e |        Resv      | s |
                         | s |<-----------------| s |
                         | s | -FLOWSPEC        |   |
                         |---|                  |---|

   Figure 2: Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs Using ADSPEC Object

   In the "ADSPEC Object" approach, the setup of an asymmetric bandwidth
   bidirectional LSP would be signaled using the bidirectional
   procedures defined in [RFC3473] together with the inclusion of a new
   ADSPEC object.  The new ADSPEC object would be specific to Ethernet
   and could be called the Ethernet Upstream Traffic Parameter ADSPEC
   object.  The Ethernet Upstream Traffic Parameter ADSPEC object would
   use the Class-Number 13 and C-Type UNASSIGNED (this approach should
   not be implemented).  The format of the object would be the same as
   the Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object defined in [MEF-TRAFFIC].

   This approach would not modify behavior of symmetric bandwidth LSPs.
   Per [MEF-TRAFFIC], such LSPs are signaled without an ADSPEC or with
   an INTSERV ADSPEC.

   The defined approach could be reused to support asymmetric bandwidth
   bidirectional LSPs for other types of switching technologies.  All
   that would be needed would be to define the proper ADSPEC object.







Berger, et. al.               Experimental                     [Page 12]


Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-01.txt October 12, 2007


 A.3 Procedures

   Using the approach presented in this section, the process of
   establishing an asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP would follow
   the process of establishing symmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP, as
   defined in Section 3 of [RFC3473], with two modifications.  These
   modifications would be followed when an incoming Path message is
   received containing an Upstream_Label object and the Ethernet
   Upstream Traffic Parameter ADSPEC object.

   The first modification to the symmetric bandwidth process would be
   that when allocating the upstream label, the bandwidth associated
   with the upstream label would be taken from the Ethernet Upstream
   Traffic Parameter ADSPEC object, see Section 3.1 of [RFC3473].
   Consistent with [RFC3473], a node that is unable to allocate a label
   or internal resources based on the contents of the ADSPEC Object,
   would issue a PathErr message with a "Routing problem/MPLS label
   allocation failure" indication.

   The second modification would be that the ADSPEC object would not be
   modified by transit nodes.


 A.4 Compatibility

   The approach presented in this section reuses semantics and
   procedures defined in [RFC3473].  To indicate the use of asymmetric
   bandwidth a new ADSPEC object c-type would be defined.  Per
   [RFC2205], nodes not supporting the approach should not recognize
   this new C-type and respond with an "Unknown object C-Type" error.


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.




Berger, et. al.               Experimental                     [Page 13]


Internet-Draft draft-berger-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-01.txt October 12, 2007


Intellectual Property

   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.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).























Berger, et. al.               Experimental                     [Page 14]

Generated on: Fri Oct 12 09:36:18 EDT 2007