CCAMP Working Group CY Lee
Internet Draft A. Farrel
Expiration Date: November 2003 S. De Cnodder
June 2003
Exclude Routes - Extension to RSVP-TE
<draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-exclude-route-00.txt>
1. Status of this memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
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."
To view the list Internet-Draft Shadow Directories, see
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
2. Abstract
The current RSVP-TE specification, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for
LSP Tunnels" (RFC 3209) and GMPLS extensions to RSVP-TE, "Generalized
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions" (RFC 3473) allow
abstract nodes and resources to be explicitly included in a path
setup, but not to be explicitly excluded.
In some systems where precise explicit paths are not computed at the
head end it may be useful to specify and signal abstract nodes and
resources that are to be explicitly excluded from routes. These
exclusions may apply to the whole of a path, or to parts of a path
between two abstract nodes specified in an explicit route.
Shared Risk Link Groups (SRLGs) allow the definition of resources or
groups of resources that share the same risk of failure. The
knowledge of SRLGs may be used to compute diverse paths that can be
used for protection. In systems where it is useful to signal
exclusions, it may be useful to signal SRLGs to indicate groups of
resources that should be excluded on the whole of a path or between
two abstract nodes specified in an explicit path.
This document specifies ways to communicate route exclusions during
path setup using RSVP-TE.
Lee, Farrel, De Cnodder [Page 1]
draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-exclude-route-00.txt June 2003
2.1 Future Work
Future work on this document may include the following.
- Addition of further examples and explanation of the applicability
of route exclusion.
- reduction of the length of the XRO and EXRS subobjects
- Identification of the scope of relevance of exclusions so that
they may be omited from signaled messages, or at least from path
computations, when they are not relevant.
- Exclusion of unnumbered links.
- Convergence of SRLG identification with formats defined in other
drafts.
3. Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
4. Overview
The current RSVP-TE specification [RSVP-TE] and GMPLS extensions
[GMPLS-RSVP-TE] allow abstract nodes and resources to be explicitly
included in a path setup, using the Explicit Route Object (ERO).
In some systems it may be useful to specify and signal abstract nodes
and resources that are to be explicitly excluded from routes. This
may be because loose hops or abstract nodes need to be prevented from
causing a route through a specific resource. This is a special case
of path calculation distribution to nodes within the system.
Two types of exclusions are required:
i) Do not include any of the abstract nodes in a given set anywhere
on the path. This set of abstract nodes to exclude is referred
to as the Exclude Route list.
ii) Do not include certain abstract nodes or resources between a
specific pair of abstract nodes present in an ERO. Such specific
exclusions are referred to as Explicit Exclusion Route.
To convey these constructs within the signaling protocol, a new RSVP
object and a new ERO subobject are introcuded respectively.
i) A new RSVP-TE object is introduced to convey the Exclude Route
list. This object is the Exclude Route Object (XRO).
ii) The second type of exclusion is achieved through a modification
to the existing ERO. A new subobject type the Explicit Exclude
Route Subobject (EXRS) is introduced to indicate an exclusion
between a pair of included abstract nodes.
Lee, Farrel, De Cnodder [Page 2]
draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-exclude-route-00.txt June 2003
SRLGs allow the definition of resources or groups of resources that
share the same risk of failure. The knowledge of SRLGs may be used
to compute diverse paths that can be used for protection. In systems
where it is useful to signal exclusions, it may be useful to signal
SRLGs to indicate groups of resources that should be excluded on the
whole of a path or between two abstract nodes specified in an
explicit path.
This document introduces an ERO subobject to indicate an SRLG to be
signaled in either of the two exclusion methods described above. This
subobject might also be appropriate for use within Explicit Routes or
Record Routes, but that discussion is outside the scope of this
document.
4.1 Scope of Excluded Routes
This document does not preclude a route exclusion from listing many
nodes or network elements to avoid. The intent is, however, to
indicate only the minimal number of subobjects to be avoided. For
instance it may be necessary to signal only the SRLGs (or Shared
Risk Groups) to avoid.
It is envisaged most of the conventional inclusion subobjects are
specified in the signaled ERO only for the area where they pertain.
The number of subobjects to be avoided, specified in the signaled XRO
may be constant throughout the whole path setup, or the subobjects to
be avoided may be removed from the XRO as they become irrelevant in
the subsequent hops of the path setup.
For example, consider an LSP that traverses multiple computation
domains. A computation domain may be an area in the administrative
or IGP sense, or may be an arbitrary division of the network for
active management and path computational pruposes. Let the primary
path be (Ingress A1,A2,AB1,B1,B2,BC1,C1,C2,Egress1) where Xn denotes
a node in domain X, and XY1 denotes a node on the border of domain X
and domain Y. Ingress is a node in cdomain A, and Egress is a node
in domain C.
Consider the establishment of a node diverse protection path. The
protection path must avoid all nodes on the primary path.
The exclusions for area A are handled during CSPF at Ingress, so the
ERO and XRO signaled at Ingress (A3-strict, A4-strict, AB2-strict,
Egress-loose) and (B1, B2, BC1, C1, C2) respectively. At AB2 the ERO
and XRO could be (B3-strict, B4-strict, BC2-strict, Egress-loose) and
(C1,C2) respectively. At BC2 the ERO could be (C3-strict, C4-strict,
Egress-strict) and an XRO is not needed from BC2 onwards.
In general, consideration should be given (as with explicit route) to
the size of signaled data and the impact on the signaling protocol.
4.2 Relationship to MPLS TE MIB
[MPLS-TE-MIB] defines managed objects for managing and modeling MPLS-
based traffic engineering. Included in [MPLS-TE-MIB] is a means to
configure explicit routes for use on specific LSPs. This
configuration allows the exclusion of certain resources.
Lee, Farrel, De Cnodder [Page 3]
draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-exclude-route-00.txt June 2003
In systems where the full explicit path is not computed at the
ingress (or at a path computation site for use at the ingress) it may
be necessary to signal those exclusions. This document offers a means
of doing this signaling.
5. Shared Risk Link Groups
The identifier of a SRLG is defined as a 32 bit quantity in [GMPLS-
OSPF]. These 32 bits are divided into an 8 bit type field and a 24
bit identifier in [CCAMP-SRLG].
5.1 SRLG ERO Subobject
The format of the ERO and its subobjects are defined in [RSVP-TE].
The new SRLG subobject is defined by this document as follows.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type | Length | Tolerance | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SRLG Id |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
L
The L bit is an attribute of the subobject. The L bit is set
if the subobject represents a loose hop in the explicit route.
If the bit is not set, the subobject represents a strict hop in
the explicit route.
For exclusions, the L bit SHOULD be set to zero and ignored.
Type
The type of the subobject [TBD].
Length
The Length contains the total length of the subobject in bytes,
including the Type and Length fields. The Length is always 8.
Tolerance
The level to which it is permissible for this SRLG to be
included in the path when more than one SRLG is specified.
A value of zero indicates that this SRLG MUST be avoided. A
tolerance value of n < m indicates that the SRLG MUST be
avoided in preference to an SRLG with tolerance value m.
If only one SRLG is present, then a value other than zero
indicates the SRLG SHOULD be avoided.
SRLG Id
The 32 bit identifier of the SRLG.
Lee, Farrel, De Cnodder [Page 4]
draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-exclude-route-00.txt June 2003
5.2 Exclusion Tolerance Semantics
The Tolerance field in the SRLG subobject indicates the degree to
which the SRLG must be avoided. (The degree to which it is
permissible to include it.)
If the Tolerance field has the value zero (0), the LSP MUST NOT
traverse or use any resource that is a member of the SRLG.
If the value is non-zero, all path computation elements SHOULD
attempt to select routes that avoid all resources that are members of
the SRLG.
Where more than one SRLG with non-zero Tolerance value is specified
for exclusion and no route can be found that avoids both SRLGs, a
route SHOULD be chosen that avoids the SRLG with the lower Tolerance
value.
6. Exclude Route List
The exclude route identifies a list of abstract nodes that MUST NOT
be traversed along the path of the LSP being established.
6.1 Exclude Route Object (XRO)
Abstract nodes to be excluded from the path are specified via the
EXCLUDE_ROUTE object (XRO). The Exclude Route Class value is [TBD].
Currently one C_Type is defined, Type 1 Exclude Route. The
EXCLUDE_ROUTE object has the following format:
Class = TBD, C_Type = 1
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// (Subobjects) //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Subobjects
The contents of an EXCLUDE_ROUTE object are a series of variable-
length data items called subobjects. The subobjects are identical
to those defined in [RSVP-TE] and [GMPLS-RSVP-TE] for use in EROs.
The following subobject types are supported.
Type Subobject
1 IPv4 prefix
2 IPv6 prefix
32 Autonomous system number
TBD SRLG
Lee, Farrel, De Cnodder [Page 5]
draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-exclude-route-00.txt June 2003
The defined values for Type above are specified in [RSVP-TE] and in
this document.
The concept of loose or strict hops has no meaning in route
exclusion. The L bit, defined for ERO subobjects in [RSPV-TE], is
re-used here to indicate that an abstract node MUST be avoided
(value 0) or SHOULD be avoided (value 1).
An Attribute octet is introduced in the subobjects that define IP
addresses to indicate the attribute (e.g. interface, node, SRLG)
associated with the IP addresses that can be excluded from the
path. For instance, the attribute node allows a whole node to be
excluded from the path, in contrast to the attribute interface,
which allows specific interfaces to be excluded from the path.
The attribute SRLG allows all SRLGs associated with an IP
address to be excluded from the path.
6.1.1 Subobject 1: IPv4 prefix
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type | Length | IPv4 address (4 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 address (continued) | Prefix Length | Attribute |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
L
0 indicates that the attribute specified MUST be excluded
1 indicates that the attribute specified SHOULD be avoided
Attribute
interface
0 indicates that the interface or set of interfaces
associated with the IP address that should be excluded
or avoided
node
1 indicates that the node or set of nodes associated with
the IP address should be excluded or avoided
SRLG
2 indicates that all the SRLGs associated with the IP
address should be excluded or avoided
Resvd
Zero on transmission. Ignored on receipt.
The rest of the fields are as defined in [RSVP-TE].
Lee, Farrel, De Cnodder [Page 6]
draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-exclude-route-00.txt June 2003
6.1.2 Subobject 2: IPv6 Prefix
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type | Length | IPv6 address (16 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 address (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 address (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 address (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 address (continued) | Prefix Length | Attribute |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
L
0 indicates that the abstract node specified MUST be excluded
1 indicates that the abstract node specified SHOULD be avoided
Attribute
interface
0 indicates that the interface or set of interfaces
associated with the IP address that should be excluded
or avoided
node
1 indicates that the node or set of nodes associated with
the IP address should be excluded or avoided
SRLG
2 indicates that all the SRLG associated with the IP
address should be excluded or avoided
Resvd
Zero on transmission. Ignored on receipt.
The rest of the fields are as defined in [RSVP-TE].
6.1.3 Subobject 32: Autonomous System Number
The L bit of an Autonomous System Number subobject does has meaning
in an Exclude Route (contrary to its usage in an Explict Route
defined in [RSVP-TE]. The meaning is as for other subobjects
described above. That is:
0 indicates that the abstract node specified MUST be excluded
1 indicates that the abstract node specified SHOULD be avoided
The rest of the fields are as defined in [RSVP-TE]. There is no
Attribute octet defined.
6.1.4 Subobject TBD: SRLG
The Attribute octet is not present. The rest of the fields are as
defined in the "SRLG ERO Subobject" section of this document.
Lee, Farrel, De Cnodder [Page 7]
draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-exclude-route-00.txt June 2003
6.2. Semantics and Processing Rules for the Exclude Route Object (XRO)
The exclude route list is encoded as a series of subobjects contained
in an EXCLUDE_ROUTE object. Each subobject identifies an abstract
node in the exclude route list.
Each abstract node may be a precisely specified IP address a node, or
an IP address with prefix identifying interfaces of a group of nodes,
or an Autonomous System.
The Explicit Route and routing processing is unchanged from the
description in [RSVP-TE] with the following additions:
a. When a Path message is received at a node, the node must check
that it is not a member of any of the abstract nodes in the XRO if
it is present in the Path message. If the node is a member of any
of the abstract nodes in the XRO it should return a PathErr with
the error code "Routing Problem" and error value of "Local node in
Exclude Route". If there are SRLGs in the XRO, the node should
check that it and the resources it uses are not part of any SRLG
that is specified with Tolerance value of zero. If it is, it
should return a PathErr with the error code "Routing Problem" and
error value of "Local node in Exclude Route". The node may be a
member of an SRLG in the XRO that is specified with a non-zero
Tolerance value.
b. When choosing a next hop or expanding an explicit route to include
additional subobjects, a node:
i) must not introduce an explicit node or an abstract node that
equals or is a member of any abstract node that is specified
in the Exclude Route Object.
ii) must not (or should not, in the case of a non-zero Tolerance
value) introduce links, nodes or resources identified by the
SRLG ID specified in the SRLG subobjects(s). If these rules
preclude further forwarding of the Path message, the node
should return a PathErr with the error code "Routing Problem"
and error value of "Route blocked by Exclude Route".
c. The subobjects in the ERO and XRO SHOULD not contradict each
other. If they do contradict, the subobjects with the L bit not
set, strict or MUST be excluded, respectively, in the ERO or XRO
MUST take precedence. If there is still a conflict, the
subobjects in the ERO MUST take precedence.
The XRO Class-Num is of the form 11bbbbbb so that nodes which do not
support the XRO will forward it uninspected and will not apply the
extensions to ERO processing described above. This makes the XRO a
'best effort' process.
This 'best-effort' approach is chosen to allow route exclusion to
traverse parts of the network that are not capable of parsing or
handling the new function. Note that Record Route may be used to
allow computing nodes to observe violations of route exclusion and
attempt to re-route the LSP accordingly.
Lee, Farrel, De Cnodder [Page 8]
draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-exclude-route-00.txt June 2003
7. Explicit Exclude Route
The Explicit Exclude Route defines abstract nodes or resources (such
as links, unnumbered interfaces or labels) that must not be used on
the path between two inclusive abstract nodes or resources in the
explicit route.
7.1. Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject (EXRS)
A new ERO subobject type is defined. The Explicit Exclude Route
Subobject (EXRS) has type [TBD]. The EXRS may not be present in
an RRO or XRO.
The format of the EXRS is as follows.
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--------------//---------------+
|L| Type | Length | EXRS subobjects |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--------------//---------------+
L
ignored and must be zero
[Note: The L bit in an ERES subobject is as defined
for the XRO subobjects]
Type
The type of the subobject, i.e. EXRS [TBD]
EXRS subobjects
An EXRS subobject indicates the abstract node or resource to
be excluded. The format of this field is exactly the format of
an XRO subobject and may include an SRLG subobject. Both
subobjects are as described earlier in this document.
Thus, an EXRO subobject for an IP hop might look as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type | Length |L| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 address (4 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix Length | Attribute | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Note: The Most Significant Bit in the Type field could be used to
indicate exclusion of IPv4/IPv6, AS and SRLG subobjects, eliminating
the need to prepend the subobject with an additional TLV header.
This would reduce the number bytes require for each subobject by 2
bytes. However, this approach would reduce the ERO Type field space by
half. This issue need WG discussion and feedback.
Lee, Farrel, De Cnodder [Page 9]
draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-exclude-route-00.txt June 2003
7.2. Semantics and Processing Rules for the EXRS
Each EXRS may carry multiple exclusions. The exclusion is encoded
exactly as for XRO subobjects and prefixed by an additional Type and
Length.
The scope of the exclusion is the step between the previous ERO
subobject that identifies an abstract node, and the subsequent ERO
subobject that identifies an abstract node. Multiple exclusions may
be present between any pair of abstract nodes.
Exclusions may indicate explicit nodes, abstract nodes or Autonomous
Systems that must not be traversed on the path to the next abstract
node indicated in the ERO.
Exclusions may also indicate resources (such as unnumbered
interfaces, link ids, labels) that must not be used on the path to
the next abstract node indicated in the ERO.
SRLGs may also be indicated for exclusion from the path to the next
abstract node in the ERO by the inclusion of an EXRO Subobject
containing an SRLG subobject. If the Tolerance value in the SRLG
subobject is zero, the resources (nodes, links, etc.) identified by
the SRLG must not be used on the path to the next abstract node
indicated in the ERO. If the Tolerance value is non- zero, the
resources identified by the SRLG should be avoided, but may be used
in preference to resources associated with another SRLG indicated for
exclusion if that SRLG has a (numerically) lower Tolerance value.
The subobjects in the ERO and EXRS SHOULD not contradict each other.
If they do contradict, the subobjects with the L bit not set, strict
or MUST be excluded, respectively, in the ERO or XRO MUST take
precedence. If there is still a conflict, the subobjects in the ERO
MUST take precedence.
If a node is called upon to process an EXRS and does not support
handling of exclusions it will return a PathErr with a "Bad
EXPLICIT_ROUTE object" error.
If the presence of EXRO Subobjects precludes further forwarding of
the Path message, the node should return a PathErr with the error
code "Routing Problem" and error value of "Route blocked by Exclude
Route".
8. Security
The new exclude route object poses no security exposures over and
above [RSVP-TE] and [GMPLS-RSVP-TE]. Note that any security concerns
that exist with Explicit Routes should be considered with regard to
route exclusions.
Lee, Farrel, De Cnodder [Page 10]
draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-exclude-route-00.txt June 2003
9. IANA Considerations
9.1. New Class Numbers
One new class number is required.
EXCLUDE_ROUTE
Class-Num = 011bbbbb
CType: 1
9.2. New Subobject Types
A new subobject type for the Exclude Route Object and Explicit
Exclude Route Subobject is required.
SRLG subobject
A new subobject type for the ERO is required.
Explicit Exclude Route subobject
9.3. New Error Codes
New error values are needed for the error code 'Routing Problem'.
Unsupported Exclude Route Subobject Type [TBD]
Local Node in Exclude Route [TBD]
Route Blocked by Exclude Route [TBD]
10. Acknowledgments
This document reuses text from [RSVP-TE] for the description of
EXCLUDE_ROUTE.
The authors would like to express their thanks to Igor Bryskin,
Lou Berger and Dimitri Papadimitriou for their considered opinions on
this draft. Also thanks to Yakov Rekhter for reminding us about
SRLGs!
11. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997
[RSVP-TE] D. Awduche, et al., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP
for LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[GMPLS-RSVP-TE] L. Berger (Ed.), "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions",
RFC 3473, January 2003.
[GMPLS-OSPF] K. Kompela, et al., "OSPF Extensions in Support of
Generalized MPLS", Internet Draft,
draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-09.txt,
December 2002 (work in progress).
Lee, Farrel, De Cnodder [Page 11]
draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-exclude-route-00.txt June 2003
[CCAMP-SRLG] D. Papadimitriou, et al., "Shared Risk Link Groups
Encoding and Processing", Internet Draft,
draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-srlg-processing-01.txt,
November 2002 (work in progress).
[MPLS-TE-MIB] C. Srinivasan, et al., "Multiprotocol Label
Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering Management
Information Base", Internet Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-
te-mib-09.txt, November 2002 (work in progress).
12. Informational References
[MPLS-BUNDLE] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., and Berger, L.,
"Link Bundling in MPLS Traffic Engineering",
Internet Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-bundle-04.txt,
January 2003, (work in progress).
[MPLS-UNNUM] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "Signalling Unnumbered
Links in RSVP-TE", RFC 3477, January 2003.
13. Authors' Information
Cheng-Yin Lee
Alcatel
600 March Road.
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada K2K 2E6
email: Cheng-Yin.Lee@alcatel.com
Adrian Farrel
Movaz Networks, Inc.
7926 Jones Branch Drive, Suite 615
McLean VA, 22102 USA
Phone: +1-703-847-1867
Email: afarrel@movaz.com
Stefaan De Cnodder
Alcatel
Francis Wellesplein 1
B-2018 Antwerp, Belgium
email: stefaan.de_cnodder@alcatel.be
14. 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
Lee, Farrel, De Cnodder [Page 12]
draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-exclude-route-00.txt June 2003
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.
Lee, Farrel, De Cnodder [Page 13]
