Networking Working Group JP. Vasseur (Editor)
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc
Expires: August 9, 2006 JL. Leroux (Editor)
France Telecom
S. Yasukawa
NTT
S. Previdi
P. Psenak
Cisco Systems, Inc
P. Mabbey
Comcast
February 5, 2006
Routing extensions for discovery of Multiprotocol (MPLS) Label Switch
Router (LSR) Traffic Engineering (TE) mesh membership
draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-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/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 August 9, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
Vasseur, Le Roux et al. Expires August 9, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-01.txt February 2006
The set up of a full mesh of Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS)
Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Path (LSP) among a set of
Label Switch Routers (LSR) is common deployment scenario of MPLS
Traffic Engineering either for bandwidth optimization, bandwidth
guarantees or fast rerouting with MPLS Fast Reroute. Such deployment
may require the configuration of potentially a large number of TE
LSPs (on the order of the square of the number LSRs). This document
specifies IGP routing extensions for ISIS and OSPF so as to provide
an automatic discovery of the set of LSRs members of a mesh in order
to automate the creation of such mesh.
Requirements Language
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 [RFC2119].
Vasseur, Le Roux et al. Expires August 9, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-01.txt February 2006
Table of Contents
1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. TE Mesh-Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Required Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. TE-MESH-GROUP TLV formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. IS-IS TE-MESH-GROUP TLV format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Elements of procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. OSPF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. ISIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Backward compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 16
Vasseur, Le Roux et al. Expires August 9, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-01.txt February 2006
1. Terminology
Terminology used in this document
LSR: Label Switch Router.
TE LSP: Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path.
TE LSP head-end: head/source of the TE LSP.
TE LSP tail-end: tail/destination of the TE LSP.
IGP Area: OSPF area or IS-IS level.
2. Introduction
There are two well-known approaches in deploying MPLS Traffic
Engineering:
(1) The so-called "strategic" approach that consists of setting up a
full mesh of TE LSPs between a set of LSRs,
(2) The so-called "tactical" approach where a set of TE LSPs are
provisioned on well identified "hot spots" in order to alleviate a
congestion resulting for instance from an unexpected traffic growth
in some parts of the network.
The set up of a full mesh of TE LSPs among a set of LSRs is a common
deployment scenario of MPLS Traffic Engineering either for bandwidth
optimization, bandwidth guarantees or fast rerouting with MPLS Fast
Reroute. Setting up a full mesh of TE LSPs between N LSRs requires
the configuration of a potentially large number of TE LSPs (O(N^2)).
Furthermore, the addition of any new LSR in the mesh requires the
configuration of N additional TE LSPs on the new LSR and one new TE
LSP on every LSR of the existing mesh destined to this new LSR, which
gives a total of 2*N TE LSPs to be configured. Such operation is not
only time consuming but also a risky operation (prone to
misconfiguration) for Service Providers. Hence, an automatic
mechanism for setting up TE LSPs meshes is desirable and requires the
ability to automatically discover the LSRs that belong to the mesh.
This document specifies routing extensions so as to automatically
discover the members of a mesh, also referred to as a "TE mesh-
group". Note that the mechanism(s) needed for the dynamic creation
of TE LSPs is implementation specific and outside the scope of this
document.
Routing extensions have been defined in [I-D.ietf-ospf-cap] and
Vasseur, Le Roux et al. Expires August 9, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-01.txt February 2006
[I-D.ietf-isis-caps] in order to advertise router capabilities. This
document specifies IGP (OSPF and IS-IS) TE Mesh Group TLVs allowing
for the automatic discovery of a TE LSP mesh members, to be carried
in the OSPF Router Information LSA [I-D.ietf-ospf-cap] and ISIS
Router Capability TLV [I-D.ietf-isis-caps]. The routing extensions
specified in this document provide the ability to signal multiple TE
mesh groups. An LSR may belong to one or more TE mesh-group(s).
3. TE Mesh-Group
3.1. Description
A TE mesh-group is defined as a group of LSRs that are connected by a
full mesh of TE LSPs. Routing extensions are specified in this
document allowing for dynamic discovery of the TE mesh-group members.
Procedures are also specified for a member to join and leave a TE
mesh-group.
3.2. Required Information
This document specifies a TE-MESH-GROUP TLV that indicates the set of
TE mesh-group(s) an LSR belongs to. For each TE mesh-group
membership announced by an LSR, the TE-MESH-GROUP TLV advertises the
following information:
- A mesh-group number identifying the TE mesh-group the LSR belongs
to.
- A Tail-end address (used as TE LSP tail-end address by other LSRs
belonging to the same mesh-group).
- A Tail-end name: string used to ease the TE-LSP naming.
4. TE-MESH-GROUP TLV formats
4.1. OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV format
Vasseur, Le Roux et al. Expires August 9, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-01.txt February 2006
the OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV (advertised in an OSPF router information
LSA defined in [I-D.ietf-ospf-cap]) has the following format:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Value //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1 - OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV format
Where
Type: identifies the TLV type
Length: length of the value field in octets
The format of the OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV is the same as the TLV
format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF
(see[RFC3630]). The TLV is padded to four-octet alignment; padding
is not included in the length field (so a three octet value would
have a length of three, but the total size of the TLV would be eight
octets). Nested TLVs are also 32-bit aligned. Unrecognized types
are ignored. All types between 32768 and 65535 are reserved for
vendor-specific extensions. All other undefined type codes are
reserved for future assignment by IANA. The TE-MESH-GROUP TLV is
used to advertise the desire of an LSR to join/leave a given TE mesh-
group. No sub-TLV is currently defined for the TE-mesh-group TLV.
Vasseur, Le Roux et al. Expires August 9, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-01.txt February 2006
The TE-MESH-GROUP TLV has the following format:
TYPE: To be assigned by IANA (Suggested Value: 3)
LENGTH: Variable
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| mesh-group-number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tail-end IPv4 address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Name length | Tail-end name (NULL padded display string) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2 - TE-MESH-GROUP TLV format (IPv4 Address)
TYPE: To be assigned by IANA (Suggested Value: 4)
LENGTH: Variable
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| mesh-group-number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Tail-end IPv6 address |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Name length | Tail-end name (NULL padded display string) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3 - TE-MESH-GROUP TLV format (IPv6 Address)
For each TE mesh-group announced by the LSR, the TE-MESH-GROUP TLV
comprises:
- A mesh-group-number that identifies the mesh-group number
- A Tail-end address: an IPv4 or IPv6 IP address to be used as a
tail-end TE LSP address by other LSRs belonging to the same mesh-
group
- A Tail-end name: a variable length field used to facilitate the TE
LSP identification. The Name length field indicates the length of
Vasseur, Le Roux et al. Expires August 9, 2006 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-01.txt February 2006
the display string before padding, in bytes.
4.2. IS-IS TE-MESH-GROUP TLV format
The IS-IS TE-MESH-GROUP TLV (advertised in the IS-IS CAPABILITY TLV
defined in [I-D.ietf-isis-caps] ) is composed of 1 octet for the
type, 1 octet specifying the TLV length and a value field. The
format of the TE-MESH-GROUP TLV is identical to the TLV format used
by the Traffic Engineering Extensions for IS-IS [RFC3784]. The TE-
MESH-GROUP TLV is used to advertise the desire of an LSR to join/
leave a given TE mesh-group. No sub-TLV is currently defined for the
TE-MESH-GROUP TLV.
Vasseur, Le Roux et al. Expires August 9, 2006 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-01.txt February 2006
The TE-MESH-GROUP TLV has the following format:
TYPE: To be assigned by IANA (Suggested value: 3).
LENGTH: Variable
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| mesh-group-number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tail-end IPv4 address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Name length | Tail-end name (NULL padded display string) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4 - TE-MESH-GROUP TLV format (IPv4 Address)
TYPE: To be assigned by IANA (Suggested Value: 4)
LENGTH: Variable
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| mesh-group-number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Tail-end IPv6 address |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Name length | Tail-end name (NULL padded display string) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5 - TE-MESH-GROUP TLV format (IPv6 Address)
For each TE mesh-group announced by the LSR, the TE-MESH-GROUP TLV
comprises:
- A mesh-group-number that identifies the mesh-group number
- A Tail-end address: an IPv4 or IPv6 IP address to be used as a
tail-end TE LSP address by other LSRs belonging to the same mesh-
group
Vasseur, Le Roux et al. Expires August 9, 2006 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-01.txt February 2006
- A Tail-end name: a variable length field used to facilitate the TE
LSP identification. The Name length field indicates the length of
the display string before padding, in bytes.
5. Elements of procedure
The TE-MESH-GROUP TLV is carried within the OSPF Routing Information
LSA or ISIS Router capability TLV. As such, elements of procedure
are inherited from those defined in [I-D.ietf-ospf-cap] and
[I-D.ietf-isis-caps] for OSPF and ISIS respectively. Specifically, a
router MUST originate a new LSA/LSP whenever the content of this
information changes, or whenever required by regular routing
procedure (e.g. refresh). The TE-MESH-GROUP TLV is OPTIONAL and must
at most appear once in a OSPF Router Information LSA or ISIS Router
Capability TLV.
5.1. OSPF
The TE-MESH-GROUP TLV is advertised within an OSPF Router Information
opaque LSA (opaque type of 4, opaque ID of 0) as defined in
[I-D.ietf-ospf-cap].
A router MUST originate a new OSPF router information LSA whenever
the content of the any of the advertised TLV changes or whenever
required by the regular OSPF procedure (LSA refresh (every
LSRefreshTime)). If an LSR desires to join or leave a particular TE
mesh group, it MUST originate a new OSPF Router Information LSA
comprising the updated TE-MESH-GROUP TLV. In the case of a join, a
new entry will be added to the TE-MESH-GROUP TLV; conversely, if the
LSR leaves a mesh-group the corresponding entry will be removed from
the TE-MESH-GROUP TLV. Note that both operations can be performed in
the context of a single refresh. An implementation SHOULD be able to
detect any change to a previously received TE-MESH-GROUP TLV from a
specific LSR.
As defined in [RFC2370], an opaque LSA has a flooding scope
determined by its LSA type:
- link-local (type 9);
- area-local (type 10);
- entire OSPF routing domain (type 11). In this case, the flooding
scope is equivalent to the Type 5 LSA flooding scope. A router may
generate multiple OSPF Router Information LSAs with different
flooding scopes. The TE-MESH-GROUP TLV may be advertised within a
type 10 or 11 Router Information LSA depending on the MPLS TE mesh
Vasseur, Le Roux et al. Expires August 9, 2006 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-01.txt February 2006
group profile:
- If the MPLS TE mesh-group is contained within a single area (all
the LSRs of the mesh-group are contained within a single area), the
TE-MESH-GROUP TLV MUST be generated within a Type 10 Router
Information LSA;
- If the MPLS TE mesh-group spans multiple OSPF areas, the TE mesh-
group TLV MUST be generated within a Type 11 router information LSA.
It is expected that the number of mesh-groups and consequently the
number of TE-MESH-GROUP TLVs advertised within a Routing Information
LSA will be very limited (to at most 10 or so). Moreover, TE mesh-
group membership is fairly static and should not change frequently.
5.2. ISIS
The TE-MESH-GROUP TLV is advertised within the IS-IS Router
CAPABILITY TLV defined in [I-D.ietf-isis-caps]. An IS-IS router MUST
originate a new IS-IS LSP whenever the content of the any of the
advertised sub-TLV changes or whenever required by regular IS-IS
procedure (LSP refresh). If an LSR desires to join or leave a
particular TE mesh group, it MUST originate a new LSP comprising the
refreshed ISIS Router capability TLV comprising the updated TE-MESH-
GROUP TLV. In the case of a join, a new entry will be added to the
TE-MESH-GROUP TLV; conversely, if the LSR leaves a mesh-group the
corresponding entry will be deleted to the TE-MESH-GROUP TLV. Note
that both operations can be performed in the context of a single
refresh. An implementation SHOULD be able to detect any change to a
previously received TE-MESH-GROUP TLV from a specific LSR.
If the flooding scope of an MPLS Traffic Engineering capability is
limited to an IS-IS level/area, the TLV MUST not be leaked across
level/area and the S flag of the Router CAPABILITY TLV MUST be
cleared. Conversely, if the flooding scope of an MPLS Traffic
Engineering capability is the entire routing domain, the TLV MUST be
leaked across IS-IS levels/areas, and the S flag of the Router
CAPABILITY TLV MUST be set. In both cases the flooding rules
specified in [I-D.ietf-isis-caps] apply.
As specified in [I-D.ietf-isis-caps], a router may generate multiple
IS-IS Router CAPABILITY TLVs within an IS-IS LSP with different
flooding scopes.
It is expected that the number of mesh groups and consequently the
number of TE-MESH-GROUP TLV advertised within an ISIS Router
Capability TLV will be very limited (to at most 10 or so). Moreover,
TE mesh-group membership is fairly static and should not change
Vasseur, Le Roux et al. Expires August 9, 2006 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-01.txt February 2006
frequently.
6. Backward compatibility
The TE-MESH-GROUP TLVs defined in this document do not introduce any
interoperability issue. For OSPF, a router not supporting the TE-
MESH-GROUP TLV SHOULD just silently ignore the TLV as specified in
[RFC2370]. For IS-IS a router not supporting the TE-MESH-GROUP TLV
SHOULD just silently ignore the TLV.
7. IANA Considerations
OSPF
IANA will assign new OSPF TLV code-point for the newly defined TE-
MESH-GROUP TLVs carried within the Router Information LSA.
TE-MESH-GROUP TLV (IPv4) (suggested value=3)
TE-MESH-GROUP TLV (IPv6) (suggested value=4)
ISIS
IANA will assign new ISIS TLV code-point for the newly defined TE-
MESH-GROUP TLVs carried within the ISIS Router Capability TLV.
TE-MESH-GROUP TLV (IPv4) (suggested value=3)
TE-MESH-GROUP TLV (IPv6) (suggested value=4)
8. Security Considerations
No new security issues are raised in this document.
9. Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Dean Cheng, Adrian Farrel, Yannick Le Louedec
and Dave Ward for their useful comments.
10. References
Vasseur, Le Roux et al. Expires August 9, 2006 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-01.txt February 2006
10.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-isis-caps]
Vasseur, J., "IS-IS Extensions for Advertising Router
Information", draft-ietf-isis-caps-06 (work in progress),
January 2006.
[I-D.ietf-ospf-cap]
Lindem, A., "Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional
Router Capabilities", draft-ietf-ospf-cap-08 (work in
progress), December 2005.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2370] Coltun, R., "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 2370,
July 1998.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,
September 2003.
[RFC3784] Smit, H. and T. Li, "Intermediate System to Intermediate
System (IS-IS) Extensions for Traffic Engineering (TE)",
RFC 3784, June 2004.
10.2. Informative References
[OSPF-TE] Katz, et al., RFC 3630, "Traffic Engineering (TE)
Extensions to OSPF Version 2", September 2003.
[PCE-DISCO]
J.L Le Roux, JP Vasseur et al,
draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-igp (work in progress)., "IGP
protocol extensions for Path Computation Element (PCE)
Discovery", May .
Vasseur, Le Roux et al. Expires August 9, 2006 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-01.txt February 2006
Authors' Addresses
JP Vasseur (Editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc
1414 Massachusetts Avenue
Boxborough, MA 01719
USA
Email: jpv@cisco.com
JL Le Roux (Editor)
France Telecom
2, Avenue Pierre-Marzin
Lanion, 22307
FRANCE
Email: jeanlouis.leroux@francetelecom.com
Seisho Yasukawa
NTT
9-11, Midori-Cho 3-Chome
Tokyo, 180-8585
JAPAN
Email: yasukawa.seisho@lab.ntt.co.jp
Stefano Previdi
Cisco Systems, Inc
Via Del Serafico 200
Roma, 00142
Italy
Email: sprevidi@cisco.com
Peter Psenak
Cisco Systems, Inc
Pegasus Park DE Kleetlaan 6A
Diegmen, 1831
BELGIUM
Email: ppsenak@cisco.com
Vasseur, Le Roux et al. Expires August 9, 2006 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-01.txt February 2006
Paul Mabbey
Comcast
USA
Email:
Vasseur, Le Roux et al. Expires August 9, 2006 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-01.txt February 2006
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 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.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). 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.
Vasseur, Le Roux et al. Expires August 9, 2006 [Page 16]
