Network Working Group                       D. Papadimitriou (Alcatel)
Internet Draft                                      J. Drake (Calient)
Category: Informational                                   J. Ash (ATT)
Expiration Date: April 2005             A. Farrel (Old Dog Consulting)
                                                        L. Ong (Ciena)

                                                          October 2004

         Requirements for Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Signaling Usage
     and Extensions for Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)


Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
   of section 3 of RFC 3667.  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 become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
   RFC 3668.

   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

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.


   The Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) suite of
   protocols has been defined to control different switching
   technologies as well as different applications. These include support
   for requesting Time Division Multiplexing (TDM) connections including
   Synchronous Optical Network (SONET)/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy
   (SDH) and Optical Transport Networks (OTNs).

D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires April 2005                          1

draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-reqts-07.txt                  October 2004

   This document concentrates on the signaling aspects of the GMPLS
   suite of protocols. It identifies the features to be covered by the
   GMPLS signaling protocol to support the capabilities of an
   Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON). This document provides
   a problem statement and additional requirements on the GMPLS
   signaling protocol to support the ASON functionality.

1. Conventions used in this document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

   While [RFC2119] describes interpretations of these key words in terms
   of protocol specifications and implementations, they are used in this
   document to describe design requirements for protocol extensions.

2. Introduction

   The Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) suite of
   protocol specifications provides support for controlling different
   switching technologies as well as different applications. These
   include support for requesting Time Division Multiplexing (TDM)
   connections including Synchronous Optical Network (SONET)/Synchronous
   Digital Hierarchy (SDH) (see ANSI T1.105 and ITU-T G.707,
   respectively) as well as Optical Transport Networks (see ITU-T
   G.709). In addition, there are certain capabilities that are needed
   to support Automatically Switched Optical Networks control planes
   (their architecture is defined in [ITU-T G.8080]). These include
   generic capabilities such as call and connection separation, and more
   specific capabilities such as support of soft permanent connections.

   This document concentrates on requirements related to the signaling
   aspects of the GMPLS suite of protocols. It discusses functional
   requirements required to support Automatically Switched Optical
   Networks that may lead to additional extensions to GMPLS signaling
   (see [RFC3471] and [RFC3473]) to support these capabilities. In
   addition to ASON signaling requirements, this document includes GMPLS
   signaling requirements regarding backward compatibility (Section 5).
   A terminology section is provided in the Appendix.

3. Problem Statement

   The Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON) architecture
   describes the application of an automated control plane for
   supporting both call and connection management services (for a
   detailed description see [ITU-T G.8080]). The ASON architecture
   describes a reference architecture, i.e. it describes functional
   components, abstract interfaces, and interactions.

   The ASON model distinguishes reference points (representing points of
   information exchange) defined (1) between a user (service requester)

D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires April 2005                          2

draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-reqts-07.txt                  October 2004

   and a service provider control domain a.k.a. user-network interface
   (UNI), (2) between control domains a.k.a. external network-network
   interface (E-NNI) and, (3) within a control domain a.k.a. internal
   network-network interface (I-NNI). The I-NNI and E-NNI interfaces are
   between protocol controllers, and may or may not use transport plane
   (physical) links. It must not be assumed that there is a one-to-one
   relationship of control plane interfaces and transport plane
   (physical) links, or that there is a one-to-one relationship of
   control plane entities and transport plane entities, or that there is
   a one-to-one relationship of control plane identifiers for transport
   plane resources.

   This document describes requirements related to the use of GMPLS
   signaling (in particular, [RFC3471] and [RFC3473]) to provide call
   and connection management (see [ITU-T G.7713]). The functionality to
   be supported includes:
      (a) soft permanent connection capability
      (b) call and connection separation
      (c) call segments
      (d) extended restart capabilities during control plane failures
      (e) extended label association
      (f) crankback capability
      (g) additional error cases.

4. Requirements for Extending Applicability of GMPLS to ASON

   The next sections detail the signaling protocol requirements for
   GMPLS to support the ASON functions listed in Section 3. ASON defines
   a reference model and functions (information elements) to enable end-
   to-end call and connection support by a protocol across the
   respective interfaces, regardless of the particular choice of
   protocol(s) used in a network. ASON does not restrict the use of
   other protocols or the protocol-specific messages used to support the
   ASON functions. Therefore, the support of these ASON functions by a
   protocol shall not be restricted by (i.e. must be strictly
   independent of and agnostic to) any particular choice of UNI, I-NNI,
   or E-NNI used elsewhere in the network. In order to allow for
   interworking between different protocol implementations, [ITU-T
   G.7713] recognizes an interworking function may be needed.

   In support of the G.8080 end-to-end call model across different
   control domains, end-to-end signaling should be facilitated
   regardless of the administrative boundaries, protocols within the
   network or method of realization of connections within any part of
   the network. This implies that there needs to be a clear mapping of
   ASON signaling requests between GMPLS control domains and non-GMPLS
   control domains. This document provides signaling requirements for
   G.8080 distributed call and connection management based on GMPLS,
   within a GMPLS based control domain (I-NNI) and between GMPLS based
   control domains (E-NNI). It does not restrict use of other (non
   GMPLS) protocols to be used within a control domain or as an E-NNI or
   UNI. Interworking aspects related to the use of non-GMPLS protocols

D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires April 2005                          3

draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-reqts-07.txt                  October 2004

   as UNI, E-NNI, or I-NNI, including mapping of non-GMPLS protocol
   signaling requests to corresponding ASON signaling functionality and
   support of non-GMPLS address formats, is not within the scope of the
   GMPLS signaling protocol. Interworking aspects are implementation-
   specific and strictly under the responsibility of the interworking
   function, and thus outside the scope of this document.

   Any User-Network Interface (UNI) that is compliant with [RFC3473],
   e.g. [GMPLS-OVERLAY] and [GMPLS-VPN] is considered, by definition, to
   be included within the GMPLS suite of protocols and MUST be supported
   by the ASON GMPLS signaling functionality.

   Compatibility aspects of non-GMPLS systems (nodes) within a GMPLS
   control domain i.e. the support of GMPLS systems and other systems
   which utilize other signaling protocols or some which may not support
   any signaling protocols is described. For instance, Section 4.5
   'Support for Extended Label Association' covers the requirements when
   a non-GMPLS capable sub-network is introduced or when nodes do not
   support any signaling protocols.

4.1 Support for Soft Permanent Connection (SPC) Capability

   An SPC is a combination of a permanent connection at the source user-
   to-network side, a permanent connection at the destination user-to-
   network side, and a switched connection within the network. An
   Element Management System (EMS) or a Network Management System (NMS)
   typically initiates the establishment of the switched connection by
   communicating with the node that initiates the switched connection
   (also known as the ingress node). The latter then sets the connection
   using the distributed GMPLS signaling protocol. For the SPC, the
   communication method between the EMS/NMS and the ingress node is
   beyond the scope of this document (so it is for any other function
   described in this document).

   The end-to-end connection is thus created by associating the incoming
   interface of the ingress node with the switched connection within the
   network, and the outgoing interface of the switched connection
   terminating network node (also referred to as egress node). An SPC
   connection is illustrated in the following Figure. This shows user's
   node A connected to a provider's node B via link #1, user's node Z
   connected to a provider's node Y via link #3, and an abstract link #2
   connecting provider's node B and node Y. Nodes B and Y are referred
   to as the ingress and egress (respectively) of the network switched

       ---       ---                 ---       ---
      | A |--1--| B |-----2-//------| Y |--3--| Z |
       ---       ---                 ---       ---

   In this instance, the connection on link #1 and link #3 are both
   provisioned (permanent connections that may be simple links). In
   contrast, the connection over link #2 is set up using the distributed

D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires April 2005                          4

draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-reqts-07.txt                  October 2004

   control plane. Thus the SPC is composed of the stitching of link #1,
   #2 and #3.

   Thus, to support the capability to request an SPC connection:
   - The GMPLS signaling protocol MUST be capable of supporting the
     ability to indicate the outgoing link and label information used
     when setting up the destination provisioned connection.
   - In addition, due to the inter-domain applicability of ASON
     networks, the GMPLS signaling protocol SHOULD also support
     indication of the service level requested for the SPC. In the case
     where an SPC spans multiple domains, indication of both source and
     destination endpoints controlling the SPC request MAY be needed.
     These MAY be done via the source and destination signaling
     controller addresses.

   Note that the association at the ingress node between the permanent
   connection and the switched connection is an implementation matter
   that may be under the control of the EMS/NMS and is not within the
   scope of the signaling protocol. It is, therefore, outside the scope
   of this document.

4.2 Support for Call and Connection Separation

   A call may be simply described as "An association between endpoints
   that supports an instance of a service" [ITU-T G.8080]. Thus, it can
   be considered as a service provided between two end-points, where
   several calls may exist between them. Multiple connections may be
   associated to each call. The call concept provides an abstract
   relationship between two users, where this relationship describes (or
   verifies) to what extent the users are willing to offer (or accept)
   service to each other. Therefore, a call does not provide the actual
   connectivity for transmitting user traffic, but only builds a
   relationship by which subsequent connections may be made.

   A call MAY be associated with zero, one or multiple connections. For
   the same call, connections MAY be of different types and each
   connection MAY exist independently of other connections, i.e., each
   connection is setup and released with separate signaling messages.

   The concept of the call allows for a better flexibility in how end-
   points set up connections and how networks offer services to users.
   For example, a call allows:
   - An upgrade strategy for control plane operations, where a call
     control component (service provisioning) may be separate from the
     actual nodes hosting the connections (where the connection control
     component may reside)
   - Identification of the call initiator (with both network call
     controller as well as destination user) prior to connection, which
     may result in decreasing contention during resource reservation
   - General treatment of multiple connections which may be associated
     for several purposes; for example a pair of working and recovery
     connections may belong to the same call.

D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires April 2005                          5

draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-reqts-07.txt                  October 2004

   To support the introduction of the call concept, GMPLS signaling
   SHOULD include a call identification mechanism and SHOULD allow for
   end-to-end call capability exchange.

   For instance, a feasible structure for the call identifier (to
   guarantee global uniqueness) MAY concatenate a globally unique fixed
   ID (e.g., may be composed of country code, carrier code) with an
   operator specific ID (where the operator specific ID may be composed
   of a unique access point code - such as source node address - and a
   local identifier). Other formats SHALL also be possible depending on
   the call identification conventions between parties involved in the
   call setup process.

4.3 Support for Call Segments

   As described in [ITU-T G.8080], call segmentation MAY be applied when
   a call crosses several control domains. As such, an end-to-end call
   MAY consist of multiple call segments, when the call traverses
   multiple control domains. For a given end-to-end call, each call
   segment MAY have one or more associated connections and the number of
   connections associated with each call segment MAY be different.

   The initiating caller interacts with the called party by means of one
   or more intermediate network call controllers located at control
   domain boundaries (i.e., at inter-domain reference points, UNI or E-
   NNI). Call segment capabilities are defined by the policies
   associated at these reference points.

   This capability allows for independent (policy based) choices of
   signaling, concatenation, data plane protection and control plane
   driven recovery paradigms in different control domains.

4.4 Support for Extended Restart Capabilities

   Various types of failures may occur affecting the ASON control plane.
   Requirements placed on the control plane failure recovery by [ITU-T
   G.8080] include:

   - Any control plane failure (i.e. single or multiple control channel
     and/or controller failure and any combination) MUST NOT result in
     releasing established calls and connections (including the
     corresponding transport plane connections).

   - Upon recovery from a control plane failure, the recovered control
     entity MUST have the ability to recover the status of the calls
     and connections established before failure occurrence.

   - Upon recovery from a control plane failure, the recovered control
     entity MUST have the ability to recover the connectivity
     information of its neighbors.

D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires April 2005                          6

draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-reqts-07.txt                  October 2004

   - Upon recovery from a control plane failure, the recovered control
     entity MUST have the ability to recover the association between
     the call and its associated connections.

   - Upon recovery from a control plane failure, calls and connections
     in the process of being established (i.e. pending call/connection
     setup requests) SHOULD be released or continued (with setup).

   - Upon recovery from a control plane failure, calls and connections
     in the process of being released MUST be released.

4.5 Support for Extended Label Association

   It is an ASON requirement to enable support for G.805 serial compound
   links. The text below provides an illustrative example of such a
   scenario, and the associated requirements.

   Labels are defined in GMPLS (see [RFC3471]) to provide information on
   the resources used on link local basis for a particular connection.
   The labels may range from specifying a particular timeslot, a
   particular wavelength to a particular port/fiber. In the ASON
   context, the value of a label may not be consistently the same across
   a link. For example, the figure below illustrates the case where two
   GMPLS capable nodes (A and Z) are interconnected across two non-GMPLS
   capable nodes (B and C), where these nodes are all SONET/SDH nodes
   providing, e.g., a VC-4 service.

       -----                     -----
      |     |    ---     ---    |     |
      |  A  |---| B |---| C |---|  Z  |
      |     |    ---     ---    |     |
       -----                     -----

   Labels have an associated implicit imposed structure based on
   [GMPLS-SONET] and [GMPLS-OTN]. Thus, once the local label is
   exchanged with its neighboring control plane node, the structure of
   the local label may not be significant to the neighbor node since the
   association between the local and the remote label may not
   necessarily be the same. This issue does not present a problem in
   simple point-to-point connections between two control plane-enabled
   nodes where the timeslots are mapped 1:1 across the interface.
   However, once a non-GMPLS capable sub-network is introduced between
   these nodes (as in the above figure, where the sub-network provides
   re-arrangement capability for the timeslots) label scoping may become
   an issue.

   In this context, there is an implicit assumption that the data plane
   connections between the GMPLS capable edges already exist prior to
   any connection request. For instance, node A's outgoing VC-4's
   timeslot #1 (with SUKLM label=[1,0,0,0,0]) as defined in [GMPLS-
   SONET]) may be mapped onto node B's outgoing VC-4's timeslot #6
   (label=[6,0,0,0,0]) may be mapped onto node C's outgoing VC-4's

D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires April 2005                          7

draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-reqts-07.txt                  October 2004

   timeslot #4 (label=[4,0,0,0,0]). Thus by the time node Z receives the
   request from node A with label=[1,0,0,0,0], the node Z's local label
   and the timeslot no longer corresponds to the received label and
   timeslot information.

   As such, to support this capability, a label association mechanism
   SHOULD be used by the control plane node to map the received (remote)
   label into a locally significant label. The information necessary to
   allow mapping from received label value to a locally significant
   label value can be derived in several ways including:
   - Manual provisioning of the label association
   - Discovery of the label association

   Either method MAY be used. In case of dynamic association, this
   implies that the discovery mechanism operates at the timeslot/label
   level before the connection request is processed at the ingress node.
   Note that in the case where two nodes are directly connected, no
   association is required. In particular, for directly connected TDM
   interfaces no mapping function (at all) is required due to the
   implicit label structure (see [GMPLS-SONET] and [GMPLS-OTN]). In such
   instances, the label association function provides a one-to-one
   mapping of the received to local label values.

4.6 Support for Crankback

   Crankback has been identified as an important requirement for ASON
   networks. It allows a connection setup request to be retried on an
   alternate path that detours around a blocked link or node upon a
   setup failure, for instance, because a link or a node along the
   selected path has insufficient resources.

   Crankback mechanisms MAY also be applied during connection recovery
   by indicating the location of the failed link or node. This would
   significantly improve the successful recovery ratio for failed
   connections, especially in situations where a large number of setup
   requests are simultaneously triggered.

   The following mechanisms are assumed during crankback signaling:
   - the blocking resource (link or node) MUST be identified and
     returned in the error response message towards the repair node
     (that may or may not be the ingress node); it is also assumed that
     this process will occur within a limited period of time
   - the computation (from the repair node) of an alternate path around
     the blocking link or node that satisfies the initial connection
   - the re-initiation of the connection setup request from the repair
     node (i.e. the node that has intercepted and processed the error
     response message)

   The following properties are expected for crankback signaling:
   - Error information persistence: the entity that computes the
     alternate (re-routing) path SHOULD store the identifiers of the

D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires April 2005                          8

draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-reqts-07.txt                  October 2004

     blocking resources as indicated in the error message until the
     connection is successfully established or until the node abandons
     rerouting attempts. Since crankback may happen more than once
     while establishing a specific connection, the history of all
     experienced blockages for this connection SHOULD be maintained (at
     least until the routing protocol updates the state of this
     information) to perform an accurate path computation avoiding all
   - Rerouting attempts limitation: to prevent an endless repetition of
     connection setup attempts (using crankback information), the
     number of retries SHOULD be strictly limited. The maximum number of
     crankback rerouting attempts allowed MAY be limited per connection
     or per node:
     - When the number of retries at a particular node is exceeded, the
       node currently handling the failure reports the error message
       upstream to the next repair node where further rerouting attempts
       MAY be performed. It is important that the crankback information
       provided indicates that re-routing through this node will not
     - When the maximum number of retries for a specific connection
       has been exceeded, the repair node handling the current
       failure SHOULD send an error message upstream indicating
       "Maximum number of re-routings exceeded". This error message
       will be sent back to the ingress node with no further
       rerouting attempts. Then, the ingress node MAY choose to
       retry the connection setup according to local policy but also
       re-use its original path or compute a path that avoids the
       blocking resources.

     Note: after several retries, a given repair point MAY be unable to
     compute a path to the destination node that avoids all of the
     blockages. In this case, it MUST pass the error message upstream to
     the next repair point.

4.7 Support for Additional Error Cases

   To support the ASON network, the following additional category of
   error cases are defined:
   - Errors associated with basic call and soft permanent connection
     support. For example, these MAY include incorrect assignment of
     IDs for the Call or an invalid interface ID for the soft permanent
   - Errors associated with policy failure during processing of the new
     call and soft permanent connection capabilities. These MAY include
     unauthorized request for the particular capability.
   - Errors associated with incorrect specification of the service

5. Backward Compatibility

D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires April 2005                          9

draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-reqts-07.txt                  October 2004

   As noted above, in support of GMPLS protocol requirements, any
   extensions to the GMPLS signaling protocol in support of the
   requirements described in this document MUST be backward compatible.

   Backward compatibility means that in a network of nodes, some of
   which support GMPLS signaling extensions to facilitate the functions
   described in this document, and some of which do not, it MUST be
   possible to set up conventional connections (as described by [RFC
   3473]) between any arbitrary pair of nodes and traversing any
   arbitrary set of nodes. Further, the use of any GMPLS signaling
   extensions to set up calls or connections that support the functions
   described in this document MUST not perturb existing conventional

   Additionally, when transit nodes, that do not need to participate in
   the new functions described in this document, lie on the path of a
   call or connection, the GMPLS signaling extensions MUST be such that
   those transit nodes are able to participate in the establishment of
   the call or connection by passing the setup information onwards,

   Lastly, when a transit or egress node is called upon to support a
   function described in this document, but does not, the GMPLS
   signaling extensions MUST be such that they can be rejected by pre-
   existing GMPLS signaling mechanisms in a way that is not detrimental
   to the network as a whole.

6. Security Considerations

   Per [ITU-T G.8080], it is not possible to establish a connection in
   advance of call setup completion. Also, policy and authentication
   procedures are applied prior to the establishment of the call (and
   can then also be restricted to connection establishment in the
   context of this call).

   This document introduces no new security requirements to GMPLS
   signaling (see [RFC3471]).

7. Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Nic Larkin, Osama Aboul-Magd and
   Dimitrios Pendarakis for their contribution to the previous version
   of this document, Zhi-Wei Lin for his contribution to this document,
   Deborah Brungard for her input and guidance in our understanding of
   the ASON model, and Gert Grammel for his decryption effort during the
   reduction of some parts of this document.

8. References

8.1 Normative References

   [RFC2026]     S.Bradner, "The Internet Standards Process --

D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires April 2005                         10

draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-reqts-07.txt                  October 2004

                 Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

   [RFC2119]     S.Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
                 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

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

   [RFC3471]     L.Berger (Editor) et al., "Generalized Multi-
                 Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) - Signaling
                 Functional Description," RFC 3471, January 2003.

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

   [RFC3667]     S.Bradner, "IETF Rights in Contributions", BCP 78,
                 RFC 3667, February 2004.

   [RFC3668]     S.Bradner, Ed., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
                 Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3668, February 2004.

8.2 Informative References

   [GMPLS-OTN]    D.Papadimitriou (Editor), "GMPLS Signaling Extensions
                  for G.709 Optical Transport Networks Control," Work
                  in progress, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-08.txt,
                  September 2004.

   [GMPLS-OVERLAY]G.Swallow et al., "GMPLS RSVP Support for Overlay
                  Model," Work in Progress, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-
                  overlay-05.txt, October 2004.

   [GMPLS-SONET]  E.Mannie and D.Papadimitriou (Editors), "GMPLS
                  Extensions for SONET and SDH Control, Work in
                  Progress," draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-08.txt,
                  February 2003.

   [GMPLS-VPN]    H.Ould-Brahim and Y.Rekhter (Editors), "GVPN Services:
                  Generalized VPN Services using BGP and GMPLS
                  Toolkit," Work in Progress, draft-ouldbrahim-ppvpn-
                  gvpn-bgpgmpls-05.txt, May 2004.

   For information on the availability of the following documents,
   please see

   [ITU-T G.7713] ITU-T "Distributed Call and Connection Management,"
                  Recommentation G.7713/Y.1304, November 2001.

   [ITU-T G.8080] ITU-T "Architecture for the Automatically Switched
                  Optical Network (ASON)," Recommendation G.8080/

D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires April 2005                         11

draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-reqts-07.txt                  October 2004

                  Y.1304, November 2001 (and Revision, January 2003).

9. Author's Addresses

   Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel)
   Francis Wellesplein 1,
   B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
   Phone: +32 3 2408491

   John Drake (Calient)
   5853 Rue Ferrari,
   San Jose, CA 95138, USA

   Adrian Farrel
   Old Dog Consulting
   Phone:  +44 (0) 1978 860944

   Gerald R. Ash (ATT)
   AT&T Labs, Room MT D5-2A01
   200 Laurel Avenue
   Middletown, NJ 07748, USA

   Lyndon Ong (Ciena)
   5965 Silver Creek Valley Road
   San Jose, CA 95138, USA

D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires April 2005                         12

draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-reqts-07.txt                  October 2004

Appendix - Terminology

   This document makes use of the following terms:

   Administrative domain: See Recommendation G.805.

   Call: association between endpoints that supports an instance of a

   Connection: concatenation of link connections and sub-network
   connections that allows the transport of user information between the
   ingress and egress points of a sub-network.

   Control plane: performs the call control and connection control
   functions. Through signaling, the control plane sets up and releases
   connections, and may restore a connection in case of a failure.

   (Control) Domain: represents a collection of entities that are
   grouped for a particular purpose. G.8080 applies this G.805
   recommendation concept (that defines two particular forms, the
   administrative domain and the management domain) to the control plane
   in the form of a control domain. The entities that are grouped in a
   control domain are components of the control plane.

   External NNI (E-NNI): interfaces are located between protocol
   controllers between control domains.

   Internal NNI (I-NNI): interfaces are located between protocol
   controllers within control domains.

   Link: See Recommendation G.805.

   Management plane: performs management functions for the Transport
   Plane, the control plane and the system as a whole. It also provides
   coordination between all the planes. The following management
   functional areas are performed in the management plane: performance,
   fault, configuration, accounting and security management

   Management domain: See Recommendation G.805.

   Transport plane: provides bi-directional or unidirectional transfer
   of user information, from one location to another. It can also
   provide transfer of some control and network management information.
   The Transport Plane is layered; it is equivalent to the Transport
   Network defined in G.805.

   User Network Interface (UNI): interfaces are located between protocol
   controllers between a user and a control domain.

D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires April 2005                         13

draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-reqts-07.txt                  October 2004

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

   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

Disclaimer of Validity

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an

Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). 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.


   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.

D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires April 2005                         14