Network Working Group Matthew Bocci
Internet Draft Marc Lasserre
Intended status: Informational Alcatel-Lucent
Expires: January 2009
Stewart Bryant
Cisco Systems, Inc.
July 7, 2008
A Framework for MPLS in Transport Networks
draft-blb-mpls-tp-framework-00
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
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 7, 2009.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
<Lastname> Expires January 7, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MPLS TP Framework July 2008
Abstract
There is a requirement to use MPLS to provide a network layer to
support packet transport services. It is desirable that the operation
and maintenance of such an MPLS based packet transport network follow
operational models typical in optical transport networks, while
providing additional OAM, survivability and other maintenance
functions not currently supported by MPLS. This draft presents a
framework for an architectural and functional profile of MPLS in
order to support packet transport services.
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 RFC-2119 [1].
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................3
1.1. Motivation................................................3
1.2. Scope.....................................................3
1.3. Terminology...............................................3
2. Summary of Requirements........................................3
3. Transport Profile Overview.....................................4
3.1. Architecture..............................................4
3.2. Generic-ACH Label (GAL)...................................4
3.3. Generic Associated Channel Header(GE-ACH).................5
3.4. Forwarding................................................7
3.5. Operations and Management (OAM)...........................8
3.6. Control Plane.............................................9
3.6.1. PW Control Plane....................................10
3.6.2. LSP Control Plane...................................10
3.7. Survivability............................................11
3.8. Network Management.......................................12
4. Security Considerations.......................................13
5. IANA Considerations...........................................13
6. Acknowledgments...............................................13
7. References....................................................14
7.1. Normative References.....................................14
7.2. Informative References...................................15
Authors' Addresses...............................................16
Contributing Authors' Addresses..................................16
Intellectual Property Statement..................................17
Disclaimer of Validity...........................................17
<Lastname> Expires January 7, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MPLS TP Framework July 2008
1. Introduction
1.1. Motivation
Transport technologies (e.g. SDH, ATM, OTN) have been designed with
specific characteristics:
o Strictly connection oriented
Long-lived connections
Manually provisioned connections
o High level of protection and availability
o Quality of service
o Extended OAM capabilities
The development of MPLS-TP has been driven by carriers needing to
evolve SONET/SDH networks to support packet based services and
networks.
MPLS-TP defines a profile of MPLS targeted at transport applications.
This profile specifies the specific MPLS characteristics and
extensions required to meet transport requirements.
1.2. Scope
This document specifies the high-level functionality of MPLS-TP
required for adding transport-oriented capabilities to MPLS.
1.3. Terminology
2. Summary of Requirements
This section summarizes the requirements for the MPLS transport
profile. Such requirements are specified in more detail in [21], .
[22] and [23].
Solutions MUST NOT modify the MPLS forwarding architecture, and MUST
be based on existing pseudowire and LSP constructs. Point to point
LSPs MAY be unidirectional or bi-directional. Bi-directional LSPs
MUST be congruent. Point to multipoint LSPs MUST be unidirectional.
There MUST NOT be any LSP merging.
<Lastname> Expires January 7, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MPLS TP Framework July 2008
OAM, protection and forwarding of data packets MUST be able to
operate without IP forwarding support i.e. it MUST be possible to
forward packets solely based on switching the MPLS or PW label. It
must also be possible to establish and maintain LSPs and pseudowires
both in the absence or presence of a dynamic control plane. When
static provisioning is used, there MUST be no dependency on dynamic
routing or signaling.
LSP and pseudowire monitoring is only achieved through the use of OAM
and MUST NOT rely on control plane or routing functions to determine
the health of a path. Information from OAM functions is solely
responsible for initiating path recovery actions.
Mechanisms and capabilities must be able to interoperate with
existing MPLS and pseudowire control and forwarding planes.
3. Transport Profile Overview
3.1. Architecture
The architecture for a transport profile of MPLS (MPLS-TP) is based
on the MPLS-TE and (MS-)PW architectures defined in RFC 3031 [2],
RFC 3985 [5] and [16].
The MPLS-TP forwarding plane is a profile of the MPLS LSP and (MS-)PW
forwarding paradigm as detailed in section .3.4.
MPLS-TP supports a comprehensive set of OAM and protection-switching
capabilities for packet transport applications, similar to existing
SONET/SDH OAM and protection, as described in sections .3.5. and .
3.7.
MPLS-TP is operated with centralized Network Management Systems with
or without the support of a distributed control plane as described in
sections .3.6. and .3.8.
MPLS-TP defines mechanisms to differentiate specific packets (e.g.
OAM, APS, MCC or SCC) from those carrying user data packets. These
mechanisms are described in sections .3.2. and .3.3.
3.2. Generic-ACH Label (GAL)
MPLS-TP requires a mechanism to differentiate specific packets (e.g.
OAM) from others, such as normal user-plane ones. This special label
is referred to as the 'Generic-ACH Label (GAL)', as defined in [17].
The 'Generic-ACH Label (GAL)' is a generic exception mechanism used
firstly to differentiate specific packets (e.g. OAM) from others,
<Lastname> Expires January 7, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MPLS TP Framework July 2008
such as normal user-plane ones, and secondly, to indicate that the
Generic Associated Channel Header (GE-ACH) appears immediately after
the bottom of the label stack.
Note that MPLS-TP OAM packets will not reside immediately after the
'Generic-ACH Label (GAL)' but behind the Generic Associated Channel
Header (GE-ACH).
In MPLS-TP, the 'Generic-ACH Label (GAL)' always appears at the
bottom of the label stack (i.e. S bit set to 1).
3.3. Generic Associated Channel Header(GE-ACH)
The MPLS transport profile makes use of a generic associated channel
(GE-ACH) to support Fault, Configuration, Accounting, Performance and
Security (FCAPS) functions by carrying packets related to OAM, APS,
SCC and MCC, over LSPs or PWs, carried in band. The GE-ACH is defined
in [18] and it is similar to the PWE3 Associated Channel, which is
used to carry OAM packets across pseudowires. The GE-ACH is indicated
by a generic associated channel header, similar to the PWE3 VCCV
control word, and this is present for all LSPs and PWs making use of
FCAPS functions supported by the GE-ACH.
The GE-ACH functionality for LSPs SHOULD be limited to only OAM, APS,
MCC and SCC channel data.
Figure 1 shows the reference model depicting how the control channel
is associated with the pseudowire protocol stack, as per RFC 5085 .
[15].
<Lastname> Expires January 7, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MPLS TP Framework July 2008
+-------------+ +-------------+
| Layer2 | | Layer2 |
| Emulated | < Emulated Service > | Emulated |
| Services | | Services |
+-------------+ +-------------+
| | VCCV/PW | |
|Demultiplexer| < Associated Channel > |Demultiplexer|
+-------------+ +-------------+
| PSN | < PSN Tunnel > | PSN |
+-------------+ +-------------+
| Physical | | Physical |
+-----+-------+ +-----+-------+
| |
| ____ ___ ____ |
| _/ \___/ \ _/ \__ |
| / \__/ \_ |
| / \ |
+--------| MPLS/MPLS-TP Network |---+
\ /
\ ___ ___ __ _/
\_/ \____/ \___/ \____/
Figure 1 : PWE3 Protocol Stack Reference Model including the PW
Associated Control Channel
PW associated channel messages are encapsulated using the PWE3
encapsulation, so that they are handled and processed in the same
manner (or in some cases, an analogous manner) as the PW PDUs for
which they provide a control channel.
Figure 2 shows the reference model depicting how the control channel
is associated with the LSP protocol stack.
<Lastname> Expires January 7, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MPLS TP Framework July 2008
+-------------+ +-------------+
| | | |
| Payload | < Service > | Payload |
| Services | | |
+-------------+ +-------------+
| | LSP | |
|Demultiplexer| < Associated Channel > |Demultiplexer|
+-------------+ +-------------+
| PSN | < LSP > | PSN |
+-------------+ +-------------+
| Physical | | Physical |
+-----+-------+ +-----+-------+
| |
| ____ ___ ____ |
| _/ \___/ \ _/ \__ |
| / \__/ \_ |
| / \ |
+--------| MPLS/MPLS-TP Network |---+
\ /
\ ___ ___ __ _/
\_/ \____/ \___/ \____/
Figure 2 : MPLS Protocol Stack Reference Model including the
LSP Associated Control Channel
LSP associated channel messages are encapsulated using a generic
associated control channel header (GE-ACH). The presence of the GE-
ACH is indicated by the inclusion of an additional 'Generic-ACH Label
(GAL)'. This arrangement means that both normal data packets and
packets carrying an ACH are carried over LSPs in a similar manner.
Note that where a traffic engineered LSP is used the paths will be
identical.
3.4. Forwarding
MPLS-TP LSPs use the MPLS label switching operations defined in RFC
3031 [2]. The MPLS encapsulation format is as defined in RFC 3032 .
[3]. Per-platform or the per-interface label space can be selected.
MPLS-TP (MS-)PWs support the PW forwarding operations defined in .
[5]. Standard PW encapsulation mechanisms are applicable for
different client layers as defined by the IETF PWE3 WG.
MPLS-TP LSPs can be unidirectional or bidirectional point-to-point.
As for MPLS, point-to-multipoint MPLS-TP LSPs are unidirectional.
<Lastname> Expires January 7, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MPLS TP Framework July 2008
The forward and backward directions of bidirectional MPLS-TP LSPs are
congruent: they follow the same path and the pairing relationship
between the forward and the backward directions is known in each node
traversed by bidirectional LSPs.
Equal cost multi-path (ECMP) load balancing is not applicable to
MPLS-TP LSPs. MPLS-TP LSP merging is prohibited.
Penultimate hop popping (PHP) is disabled on MPLS-TP LSPs by default.
Both E-LSP and L-LSP are supported in MPLS-TP, as defined in RFC 3270
[4].
The Class of Service (CoS) field (former MPLS EXP field) follows the
definition and processing rules of [19] and RFC 3270 [4], only the
pipe and short-pipe models are supported in MPLS-TP.
3.5. Operations and Management (OAM)
MPLS-TP requires that a set of OAM capabilities is available to
perform fault management (e.g. fault detection and localization) and
performance monitoring (e.g. signal quality measurement) of the MPLS-
TP network and the services.
The following OAM functions are intended to be supported by MPLS-TP
and are intended to be applicable to any layer defined within MPLS-
TP, i.e. MPLS Section, LSP and PW:
o Continuity Check
o Connectivity verification
o Performance monitoring
o Alarm suppression
o Remote Integrity
For all of the above listed functions, (except alarm suppression)
both "continuous" and "on-demand" operations are envisaged.
Performance monitoring includes means for both "packet loss
measurement" and "delay measurement".
A requirement has been expressed for MPLS-TP OAM packets share the
same fate as of data packets and that a means exists to identify OAM
packets. The documents [17] and [18] propose specific mechanisms
<Lastname> Expires January 7, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MPLS TP Framework July 2008
relying on the combination of the 'Generic-ACH Label (GAL)' and
Generic Associated Channel Header for MPLS Sections and LSPs and
using the Generic Associated Channel Header only for MPLS PWs.
MPLS-TP OAM toolset is able to operate without IP functionality and
without relying on control and/or management planes. In the case of
MPLS-TP deployment with IP functionality, all existing IP-MPLS OAM
functions, e.g. LSP-Ping, BFD and VCCV, can be used.
OAM mechanisms are able to detect link and node failures and
performance degradations and trigger recovery actions, according to
the requirements of the service.
3.6. Control Plane
The MPLS Transport Profile utilizes a distributed control plane to
enable fast, dynamic and reliable service provisioning in multi-
vendor and multi-domain environments using standardized protocols
that guarantee interoperability. The MPLS-TP control plane is based
on the MPLS control plane for pseudowires and the GMPLS control plane
for MPLS-TP LSPs, respectively. More specifically, LDP is used for PW
signaling and RSVP-TE for LSP signaling. The distributed MPLS-TP
control plane provides the following basic functions:
o Signaling
o Routing
o Traffic engineering and constraint-based path computation
In a multi-domain environment, the MPLS-TP control plane provides
different types of interfaces at domain boundaries or within the
domains such as UNI, I-NNI, and E-NNI where different policies are in
place that control what kind of information is exchanged across these
different types of interfaces.
The MPLS-TP control plane is capable to activate MPLS-TP OAM
functions as described in the OAM section of this document (.3.5. )
e.g. for fault detection and localization in the event of a failure
in order to efficiently restore failed transport paths.
The MPLS-TP control plane supports all MPLS-TP data plane
connectivity patterns that are needed for establishing multiple types
of transport paths including protected paths as described in the
survivability section (.3.7. ) of this document. Examples of the
MPLS-TP data plane connectivity patterns are LSPs utilizing the fast
<Lastname> Expires January 7, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft MPLS TP Framework July 2008
reroute backup methods as defined in [6] and ingress-to-egress 1+1
or 1:1 protected LSPs.
Moreover, the MPLS-TP control plane is capable of performing fast
restoration in the event of network failures.
The MPLS-TP control plane provides its own survivability features and
recovers from control plane failures and degradations using graceful
operations. The MPLS-TP control plane is largely decoupled from the
MPLS-TP data plane such that failures in the control plane do not
impact the control plane and vice versa.
3.6.1. PW Control Plane
An MPLS-TP packet transport network provides many of its transport
services in the form of single-segment or multi-segment pseudowires
following the PWE3 architecture as defined in [5] and [16] . In
this context, the setup and maintenance of single-segment or multi-
segment pseudowires is based on the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)
as per [9].
It shall be noted that multi-segment pseudowire signaling is still
work in progress. The control plane supporting multi-segment
pseudowires is based on [13].
3.6.2. LSP Control Plane
MPLS-TP provider edge nodes aggregate multiple pseudowires and carry
them across the MPLS-TP network through MPLS-TP tunnels (MPLS-TP
LSPs). The generalized MPLS (GMPLS) protocol suite already supports
packet-switched capable (PSC) technologies and is therefore used as
control plane for MPLS-TP transport paths (LSPs). The LSP control
plane includes:
o RSVP-TE for signalling
o OSPF-TE for routing
RSVP-TE signaling in support of GMPLS as defined in [11] is used for
the setup, modification, and release of MPLS-TP transport paths and
protection paths. It supports unidirectional, bi-directional and
multicast types of LSPs. The route of a transport path is typically
calculated in the ingress node of a domain and the RSVP explicit
route object (ERO) is utilized for the setup of the transport path
exactly following the given route.
<Lastname> Expires January 7, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft MPLS TP Framework July 2008
OSPF-TE routing in support of GMPLS as defined in [8] is used for
carrying link state information in a MPLS-TP network.
For routing scalability reasons, parallel physical links in an MPLS-
TP network are typically bundled into TE-links as defined in [7] and
the OSPF-TE routing protocol disseminates link state information on a
TE-link basis.
3.7. Survivability
A wide variety of resiliency schemes have been developed to meet the
various network and service survivability objectives. As part of the
MPLS/PW paradigms, MPLS FRR [6] provides two methods for local
repair using back-up LSP tunnels, while PWE redundancy [14] supports
scenarios where the protection for the PW can not be fully provided
by the PSN layer (i.e. where the backup PW terminates on a different
target PE node than the working PW). Additionally, GMPLS provides a
set of control plane driven well known protection and restoration
mechanisms [11]. Finally, as part of the transport networks and
applications paradigms, APS-based linear and ring protection
mechanisms are defined in [10] and [24].
These schemes have different scopes. They are protecting against link
and/or node failures and can be applied end-to-end or on a segment of
the considered connection.
These protection schemes propose different levels of resiliency (e.g.
1+1, 1:1, shared).
The applicability of any given scheme to meet specific requirements
is outside the current scope of this document.
MPLS-TP resiliency mechanisms characteristics are listed below
o Linear, ring and meshed protection schemes are supported.
o MPLS-TP recovery mechanisms (protection and restoration), rely on
OAM mechanisms to detect and localize network faults or service
degenerations.
o APS-based protection mechanisms (linear and ring) rely on MPLS-TP
APS mechanisms to coordinate and trigger protection switching
actions.
o MPLS-TP recovery schemes are designed to be applicable at various
levels (MPLS section, LSP and PW), providing segment and end-to-
end recovery.
<Lastname> Expires January 7, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft MPLS TP Framework July 2008
o MPLS-TP recovery mechanisms support means for avoiding race
conditions in switching activity triggered by a fault condition
detected both at server layer and at MPLS-TP layer.
o MPLS-TP recovery mechanisms can be data plane, control plane or
management plane based.
o MPLS-TP allows for revertive and non-revertive behavior
o Multiple resiliency mechanisms can be applied to any connection.
3.8. Network Management
The network management architecture and requirements for MPLS-TP are
specified in [23]. It derives from the generic specifications
described in ITU-T G.7710/Y.1701 [12] for transport technologies. It
also leverages on the OAM requirements for MPLS Networks [20] and
MPLS-TP Networks [22] and expands on the requirements to cover the
modifications necessary for fault, configuration, performance, and
security.
The Equipment Management Function (EMF) of a MPLS-TP NE provides the
means through which a management system manages the NE. The
Management Communication Channel (MCC), realized by the GE-ACH,
provides a logical operations channel between NEs for transferring
Management information. For the management interface from a
management system to a MPLS-TP NE, there is no restriction on which
management protocol should be used. It is allowed to provision and
manage an end-to-end connection across a network where some segments
are create/managed, for examples by Netconf or SNMP and other
segments by XML or CORBA interfaces. It is allowed to run maintenance
operations on a connection which is independent of the provisioning
mechanism. An MPLS-TP NE is not required to offer more than one
standard management interface.
The Fault Management (FM) functions within the EMF of an MPLS-TP NE
enable the supervision, detection, validation, isolation, correction,
and alarm handling of abnormal operation of the MPLS-TP network and
its environment. Supervision for transmission (such as continuity,
connectivity, etc.), software processing, hardware, and environment
are essential for FM. Alarm handling includes alarm severity
assignment, alarm suppression/aggregation/correlation, alarm
reporting control, and alarm reporting.
Configuration Management (CM) provides functions to exercise control
over, identify, collect data from, and provide data to MPLS-TP NEs.
In addition to general configuration for hardware, software,
<Lastname> Expires January 7, 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft MPLS TP Framework July 2008
protection switching, alarm reporting control, and date/time setting,
the EMF of the MPLS-TP NE also supports the configuration of
maintenance entity identifiers (such as MEP ID and MIP ID). The EMF
also supports configuration of the OAM parameters as part of
connectivity management to meet specific operational requirements,
such as whether one-time on-demand or periodically based on a
specified frequency.
The Performance Management (PM) functions within the EMF of an MPLS-
TP NE supports the evaluation and reporting upon the behaviour of the
equipment, NE, and network with the objective of providing coherent
and consistent interpretation of the network behaviour, in particular
for hybrid network which consists of multiple transport technologies.
Packet loss measurement and delay measurement are collected so that
they can be used to detect performance degradation. Performance
degradation is reported via fault management for corrective actions
(e.g. protection switch) and via performance monitoring for Service
Level Agreement (SLA) verification and billing. The performance data
collection mechanisms should be flexible to be configured to operate
on-demand or proactively.
4. Security Considerations
To be covered in a future revision of this document.
5. IANA Considerations
To be covered in a future revision of this document.
6. Acknowledgments
To be covered in a future revision of this document.
<Lastname> Expires January 7, 2009 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft MPLS TP Framework July 2008
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[2] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., Callon, R., "Multiprotocol Label
Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001
[3] Rosen, E., et al., "MPLS Label Stack Encoding", RFC 3032,
January 2001
[4] Le Faucheur, F., et al., "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS)
Support of Differentiated Services", RFC 3270 May 2002
[5] Bryant, S., Pate, P. "Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3)
Architecture", RFC 3985, March 2005
[6] Pan, P., Swallow, G., Atlas, A., "Fast Reroute Extensions to
RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090, May 2005
[7] Kompella, K. Rekhter, Y., Berger, L., " Link Bundling in MPLS
Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4201 October, 2005
[8] Kompella, K. Rekhter, Y., "OSPF Extensions in Support of
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4203
October 2005
[9] Martini, L. et al., "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the
Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 4447, April 2006
[10] ITU-T Recommendation G.8131/Y.1382 (02/07) " Linear protection
switching for Transport MPLS (T-MPLS) networks"
[11] Lang, J.P., Rekhter, Y., Papadimitriou, D. (Editors), "RSVP-TE
Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery", RFC 4872, May 2007
[12] ITU-T Recommendation G.7710/Y.1701 (07/07), "Common equipment
management function requirements"
[13] Martini, L., Bocci, M., Balus, F., "Dynamic Placement of Multi
Segment Pseudo Wires", draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-06,
November 2007
<Lastname> Expires January 7, 2009 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft MPLS TP Framework July 2008
[14] Muley, P., et al., "Pseudowire (PW) Redundancy", draft-muley-
pwe3-redundancy-02, November 2007
[15] Nadeau, T., Pignataro, S., "Pseudowire Virtual Circuit
Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control Channel for
Pseudowires", RFC 5085, December 2007
[16] Bocci, M., Bryant, S., "An Architecture for Multi-Segment
Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge", draft-ietf-pwe3-ms-pw-arch-
04, June 2008
[17] Vigoureux, M., Swallow, G., Aggarwal, R., "Assignment of the
Generic Associated Channel Header Label (GAL)", draft-
vigoureux-mpls-tp-gal-00, June 2008
[18] Bocci, M., Ward, D., "MPLS Generic Associated Channel", draft-
bocci-pwe3-mpls-tp-ge-ach-00, June 2008
[19] Andersson, L., ""EXP field" renamed to "CoS Field"", draft-
ietf-mpls-cosfield-def-03, July 2008
7.2. Informative References
[20] Nadeau, T., et al., "Operations and Management (OAM)
Requirements for Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS)
Networks", RFC 4377, February 2006
[21] Niven-Jenkins, B., Brungard, D., Betts, M., "MPLS-TP
Requirements", draft-jenkins-mpls-mpls-tp-requirements-00, July
2008
[22] Vigoureux, M., Betts, M., Ward, D., "Requirements for OAM in
MPLS Transport Networks", draft-vigoureux-mpls-tp-oam-
requirements-00, July 2008
[23] Lam, H.-K., Mansfield, S., Gray, E., "MPLS TP Network
Management Requirements", draft-gray-mpls-tp-nm-req-00, July
2008
[24] Draft ITU-T Recommendation G.8132/Y.1382, "T-MPLS shared
protection ring", http://www.itu.int/md/T05-SG15-080211-TD-
PLEN-0501/en
<Lastname> Expires January 7, 2009 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft MPLS TP Framework July 2008
Authors' Addresses
Matthew Bocci
Alcatel-Lucent
Email: matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.co.uk
Marc Lasserre
Alcatel-Lucent
Email: mlasserre@alcatel-lucent.com
Stewart Bryant
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email :stbryant@cisco.com
Contributing Authors' Addresses
Dieter Beller
Alcatel-Lucent
Email: d.beller@alcatel-lucent.de
Italo Busi
Alcatel-Lucent
Email: italo.busi@alcatel-lucent.it
Hing-Kam Lam
Alcatel-Lucent
Email: hklam@alcatel-lucent.com
Lieven Levrau
Alcatel-Lucent
Email: llevrau@alcatel-lucent.com
<Lastname> Expires January 7, 2009 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft MPLS TP Framework July 2008
Vincenzo Sestito
Alcatel-Lucent
Email: vincenzo.sestito@alcatel-lucent.it
Martin Vigoureux
Alcatel-Lucent
Email: martin.vigoureux@alcatel-lucent.com
Intellectual Property Statement
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.
Disclaimer of Validity
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.
<Lastname> Expires January 7, 2009 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft MPLS TP Framework July 2008
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
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.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
<Lastname> Expires January 7, 2009 [Page 18]