CCAMP Working Group D. Papadimitriou (Alcatel)
Internet Draft J. Drake (Calient)
Category: Informational J. Ash (ATT)
A. Farrel (Old Dog Consulting)
Expiration Date: April 2004 L. Ong (Ciena)
October 2003
Requirements for Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Signaling Usage
and Extensions for Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-reqts-04.txt
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC-2026.
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.
1. Abstract
The Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) suite of protocols has been defined to
control different switching technologies as well as different
applications. These include support for requesting TDM connections
including SONET/SDH and Optical Transport Networks (OTNs).
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.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires April 2004 1
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-reqts-04.txt October 2003
2. 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.
3. Introduction
The GMPLS suite of protocol specifications provides support for
controlling different switching technologies as well as different
applications. These include support for requesting TDM connections
including SONET/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 the signaling aspects of the GMPLS
suite of protocols. It discusses the functional requirements that
lead to additional and backward compatible extensions to GMPLS
signaling (see [RFC 3471] and [RFC 3473]) to support the
capabilities as specified in the above referenced document. A
description of backward compatibility considerations is provided in
Section 5. A terminology section is provided in the Appendix.
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]).
Also, the ASON model distinguishes reference points (representing
points of protocol information exchange) defined (1) between an
administrative domain and a user a.k.a. user-network interface
(UNI), (2) between (and when needed within) administrative domains
a.k.a. external network-network interface (E-NNI) and, (3) between
areas of the same administrative domain and when needed between
control components (or simply controllers) within areas a.k.a.
internal network-network interface (I-NNI).
This document describes the use of GMPLS signaling (in particular,
[RFC 3471] and [RFC 3473]) to provide call and connection management
(see [ITU-T G.7713]). The following functionality is expected to be
supported and to be backward compatible with the GMPLS protocol
suite as currently defined by the IETF:
(a) soft permanent connection capability
(b) call and connection separation
(c) call segments
(d) extended restart capabilities during control plane failures
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires March 2004 2
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-reqts-04.txt October 2003
(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 following ASON functions:
- Support for soft permanent connection capability
- Support for call and connection separation
- Support for call segments
- Support for extended restart capabilities during control plane
failures
- Support for extended label association
- Support for crankback capability
- Support for additional error cases
The support of these functions must be strictly independent of and
agnostic to any user-to-network interface (UNI) and therefore not be
constrained or restricted by the implementation specifics of the UNI
(see [ITU-T G.8080] and [ITU-T G.7713]).
In support of the G.8080 end-to-end call model across different
signaling domains, end-to-end signaling should be facilitated
regardless of the administrative boundaries and protocols within the
network. This implies that there needs to be a clear mapping of
signaling requests between GMPLS control domains and non-GMPLS
control domains. This document provides signalling requirements for
G.8080 distributed call and connection management based on GMPLS,
within a GMPLS based control domain and between GMPLS based control
domains. It does not restrict use of other protocols within a
control domain. Interworking aspects, including mapping of non-GMPLS
protocol signaling requests and support of non-GMPLS address
formats, are strictly under the responsibility of the non-GMPLS
control domain, and thus outside the scope of this document.
Any User-Network Interface (UNI) that is compliant with [RFC 3473],
e.g. [GMPLS-OVERLAY] and [GMPLS-VPN] is considered, by definition,
to be a GMPLS UNI and must be supported.
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.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires March 2004 3
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-reqts-04.txt October 2003
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 connection.
--- --- --- ---
| 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 control plane. Thus the SPC is composed of the splicing
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
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.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires March 2004 4
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-reqts-04.txt October 2003
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 property of a call is to contain zero, one or multiple
connections. Within 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. For example, a call may contain a set
of basic connections and virtually concatenated connections (see
[GMPLS-SONET] for corresponding connection signaling extensions).
The concept of the call allows for a better flexibility in how end-
points set up connections and how networks offer services to users.
In essence, a call allows:
- Support for virtual concatenation where each connection can travel
on different diverse paths
- 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.
To support the introduction of the call concept, GMPLS signaling
should include a call identification mechanism and 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.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires March 2004 5
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-reqts-04.txt October 2003
4.3 Support for Call Segments
As described in [ITU-T G.8080], call segmentation may be applied
when a call crosses several administrative domains. As such, an end-
to-end call may consist of multiple call segments, when the call
traverses multiple administrative domains. Each call segment can
have one or more associated connections and the number of
connections associated with each call segment may not be the same
for a given end-to-end call.
The initiating caller interacts with a called party by means of one
or more intermediate call controllers located at the network edge
between administrative domains (i.e., inter-domain reference point)
and in particular at the user-to-network reference point. Their
functions are defined by the policies associated by interactions
between the administrative domain boundaries and between users and
the network.
This capability allows for independent (policy based) choices of
signaling, concatenation, data plane protection and control plane
driven recovery paradigms in different administrative 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 must not result in releasing established
calls and connections.
- Upon recovery from a control plane failure, the recovered node
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 node
must have the ability to recover the connectivity information of
its neighbors.
- 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.
- Upon recovery from a control plane failure, a call must have
the ability to re-synchronize with its associated connections.
4.5 Support for Extended Label Association
Labels are defined in GMPLS (see [RFC 3471]) 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
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires March 2004 6
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-reqts-04.txt October 2003
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
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
has to 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 may 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.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires March 2004 7
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-reqts-04.txt October 2003
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 satisfying the initial connection
constraints
- 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
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
blockages.
- 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 can be limited per
connection, per node, per area or even per administrative domain.
- When the number of retries at a particular node or area 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 succeed.
- When the maximum number of retries for a specific connection
has been exceeded, the repair node handling the current
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires March 2004 8
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-reqts-04.txt October 2003
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
connection.
- 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
level.
5. Backward Compatibility
As noted above, 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
connections.
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,
unmodified.
Lastly, when a transit or egress node is called upon to support a
function described in this document, but does not, the GMPLS
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires March 2004 9
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-reqts-04.txt October 2003
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
until the associated call has been set up. 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 [RFC 3471]).
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 redaction of some parts of this document.
8. References
8.1 Normative References
[RFC 2026] S.Bradner, "The Internet Standards Process --
Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC 2119] S.Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC 3209] D.Awduche et al., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for
LSP Tunnels," RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC 3471] L.Berger (Editor) et al., "Generalized Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) - Signaling
Functional Description," RFC 3471, January 2003.
[RFC 3473] L.Berger (Editor) et al., "Generalized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling - Resource
ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
Extensions," RFC 3473, January 2003.
[ITU-T G.8080] ITU-T Rec. G.8080/Y.1304, "Architecture for the
Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON),"
November 2001 (and Revision, January 2003).
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires March 2004 10
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-reqts-04.txt October 2003
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-g709-04.txt, May
2003.
[GMPLS-OVERLAY]G.Swallow et al., "GMPLS RSVP Support for Overlay
Model," Work in Progress, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-
overlay-01.txt, February 2003.
[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 (Editor), "GVPN Services:
Generalized VPN Services using BGP and GMPLS
Toolkit," Work in Progress, draft-ouldbrahim-ppvpn-
gvpn-bgpgmpls-03.txt, March 2003.
[ITU-T G.7713] ITU-T Rec. G.7713/Y.1304, "Distributed Call and
Connection Management," November 2001.
9. Author's Addresses
Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel)
Francis Wellesplein 1,
B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
Phone: +32 3 2408491
EMail: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be
John Drake (Calient)
5853 Rue Ferrari,
San Jose, CA 95138, USA
EMail: jdrake@calient.net
Adrian Farrel
Old Dog Consulting
Phone: +44 (0) 1978 860944
EMail: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Gerald R. Ash (ATT)
AT&T Labs, Room MT D5-2A01
200 Laurel Avenue
Middletown, NJ 07748, USA
EMail: gash@att.com
Lyndon Ong (Ciena)
5965 Silver Creek Valley Road
San Jose, CA 95138, USA
EMail: lyong@ciena.com
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires March 2004 11
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-reqts-04.txt October 2003
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
service.
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 March 2004 12
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-reqts-04.txt October 2003
Full Copyright Statement
"Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph
are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires March 2004 13
Datatracker
Report a datatracker bug
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-reqts-04
Internet-Draft
| Document | Document type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 4139.
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Select version | |||
| Compare versions | |||
| Author | |||
| Replaces | draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-gmpls-ason-reqts | ||
| RFC stream |
|
||
| Other formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion |