Network Working Group J.P. Vasseur (Editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
IETF Internet Draft J.L. Le Roux (Editor)
France Telecom
Proposed Status: Standard Track S. Yasukawa
Expires: April 2007 NTT
S. Previdi
P. Psenak
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Paul Mabey
Comcast
October 2006
IGP Routing Protocol Extensions for Discovery of Traffic Engineering
Node Capabilities
draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-02.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.
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al. [Page 1]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-02.txt October 2006
Abstract
It is highly desired in several cases, to take into account Traffic
Engineering (TE) node capabilities during Multi Protocol Label
Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineered Label Switched Path (TE-LSP)
selection, such as for instance the capability to act as a branch
Label Switching Router (LSR) of a Point-To-MultiPoint (P2MP) LSP.
This requires advertising these capabilities within the Interior
Gateway Protocol (IGP). For that purpose, this document specifies
Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) and Intermediate System-Intermediate
System (IS-IS) traffic engineering extensions for the advertisement
of control plane and data plane traffic engineering node
capabilities.
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.
Table of Contents
1. Terminology.................................................3
2. Introduction................................................3
3. TE Node Capability Descriptor...............................4
3.1. Description.................................................4
3.2. Required Information........................................4
4. TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV formats...................5
4.1. OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV format...............5
4.1.1. The DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV..................................5
4.1.2. The CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV...............................6
4.2. IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV format..............7
4.2.1. DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV......................................7
4.2.2. CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV...................................8
5. Elements of procedure.......................................9
5.1. OSPF........................................................9
5.2. IS-IS......................................................10
6. Backward compatibility.....................................10
7. Security Considerations....................................11
8. IANA considerations........................................11
8.1. OSPF TLVs..................................................11
8.2. ISIS TLVs..................................................11
8.3. Capability Registries......................................12
8.3.1. Data Plane Capabilities Registry...........................12
8.3.2. Control Plane Capabilities Registry........................12
9. Acknowledgments............................................13
10. References.................................................13
10.1. Normative references.......................................13
10.2. Informative References.....................................14
11. Editors' Addresses.........................................14
12. Contributors' Addresses....................................14
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al. [Page 2]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-02.txt October 2006
13. Intellectual Property Statement............................15
1. Terminology
This document uses terminologies defined in [RFC3031], [RFC3209] and
[RFC4461].
2. Introduction
Multi Protocol Label Switching-Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) routing
([RFC3784], [RFC3630], [OSPFv3-TE]) relies on extensions to link
state Interior Gateway Protocols (IGP) ([IS-IS], [RFC2328],
[RFC2740]) in order to advertise Traffic Engineering (TE) link
information used for constraint based routing. Further Generalized
MPLS (GMPLS) related routing extensions are defined in [RFC4205] and
[RFC4203].
It is desired to complement these routing extensions in order to
advertise TE node capabilities, in addition to TE link information.
These TE node capabilities will be taken into account as constraints
during path selection.
Indeed, it is useful to advertise data plane TE node capabilities,
such as the capability for a Label Switching Router (LSR) to be a
branch LSR or a bud-LSR of a Point-To-MultiPoint (P2MP) Label
Switched Path (LSP). These capabilities can then be taken into
account as constraints when computing the route of TE LSPs.
It is also useful to advertise control plane TE node capabilities
such as the capability to support GMPLS signaling for a packet LSR,
or the capability to support P2MP (Point to Multipoint) TE LSP
signaling. This allows selecting a path that avoids nodes that do
not support a given signaling feature, or triggering a mechanism to
support such nodes. Hence this facilitates backward compatibility.
For that purpose, this document specifies IGP (OSPF and IS-IS)
traffic engineering node capability TLVs in order to advertise data
plane and control plane capabilities of a node.
A new TLV is defined for ISIS and OSPF: the TE Node Capability
Descriptor TLV, to be carried within:
- The ISIS Capability TLV ([ISIS-CAP]) for ISIS
- The Router Information LSA ([OSPF-CAP]) for OSPF.
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al. [Page 3]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-02.txt October 2006
3. TE Node Capability Descriptor
3.1. Description
LSRs in a network may have distinct control plane and data plane
Traffic Engineering capabilities. The TE Node Capability Descriptor
information defined in this document describes data and control plane
capabilities of an LSR. Such information can be used during path
computation so as to avoid nodes that do not support a given TE
feature either in the control or data plane, or to trigger procedures
to handle these nodes along the path (e.g, trigger LSP hierarchy to
support a legacy transit LSR on a P2MP LSP (see [RSVP-P2MP])).
3.2. Required Information
The TE Node Capability Descriptor contains two variable length sets
of bit flags:
- The Data Plane Capabilities: This is a variable length
set of bit flags where each bit corresponds to a given data
plane TE node capability.
- The Control Plane Capabilities: This is a variable length
set of bit flags where each bit corresponds to a given
control plane TE node capability.
Two Data Plane Capabilities are defined in this document:
- B bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR can act
as a branch node on a P2MP LSP (see [RFC4461]);
- E bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR can act
as a bud LSR on a P2MP LSP, i.e. an LSR that is both
transit and egress (see [RFC4461]).
Three Control Plane Capabilities are defined in this document:
- M bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR supports
MPLS-TE signaling ([RFC3209]);
- G bit: when set this flag indicates that the LSR supports
GMPLS signaling ([RFC3473]);
- P bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR supports
P2MP MPLS-TE signaling ([RSVP-P2MP]).
Note that new capability bits may be added in the future if required.
Also, more complex capabilities encoded within sub-TLVs may be added
in the future if required.
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al. [Page 4]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-02.txt October 2006
4. TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV formats
4.1. OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV format
The OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV contains a non ordered set
of sub-TLVs.
The format of the OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV and its sub-
TLVs is the same as the TLV format used by the Traffic Engineering
Extensions to OSPF [RFC3630]. That is, the TLV is composed of 2
octets for the type, 2 octets specifying the length of the value
field and a value field. The TLV is zero padded to four-octet
alignment; padding is not included in the length field value (so a
three octet value would have a length of three, but the total size of
the TLV would be eight octets). Sub-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 OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV has the following format:
TYPE To be defined by IANA
LENGTH Variable
VALUE This comprises one or more sub-TLVs
Currently two sub-TLVs are defined:
Sub-TLV type Length Name
1 variable DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV
2 variable CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV
Any unrecognized sub-TLV MUST be silently ignored.
More sub-TLVs could be added in the future to handle new
capabilities.
The OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is carried within an OSPF
Router Information LSA which is defined in [OSPF-CAP].
4.1.1. The DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV
The DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV is a variable length TLV that contains a
series of bit flags, where each bit correspond to a data plane TE
node capability.
The format of the DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV is as follows:
TYPE To be assigned by IANA (suggested value =1).
LENGTH Variable (multiple of 4).
VALUE Array of units of 32 flags numbered from the most
significant bit as bit zero, where each bit represents
a data plane TE node capability.
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al. [Page 5]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-02.txt October 2006
The following bits are defined:
Bit Capabilities
0 B bit: P2MP Branch Node capability: When set this indicates
that the LSR can act as a branch node on a P2MP LSP
[RFC4461].
1 E bit: P2MP Bud-LSR capability: When set, this indicates
that the LSR can act as a bud LSR on a P2MP LSP, i.e. an
LSR that is both transit and egress [RFC4461].
The values for the B and E bits are to be assigned by IANA.
2-31 Reserved for future assignments by IANA.
Unassigned bits are considered as reserved and MUST be set to zero on
transmission by the advertising LSR.
4.1.2. The CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV
The CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV is a variable length TLV that contains
a series of bit flags, where each bit correspond to a control plane
TE node capability.
The format of the CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV is as follows:
TYPE To be assigned by IANA (suggested value = 2).
LENGTH Variable (multiple of 4).
VALUE Array of units of 32 flags numbered from the most
significant bit as bit zero, where each bit represents
a control plane TE node capability.
The following bits are defined:
Bit Capabilities
0 M bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports
MPLS-TE signaling ([RFC3209]).
1 G bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports
GMPLS signaling ([RFC3473]).
2 P bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports
P2MP MPLS-TE signaling ([RSVP-P2MP]).
3-31 Reserved for future assignments by IANA
The values for the M, G and P bits are to be assigned by IANA.
Unassigned bits are considered as reserved and MUST be set to zero on
transmission by the advertising LSR.
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al. [Page 6]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-02.txt October 2006
4.2. IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV format
The IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV contains a non ordered
set of sub-TLVs.
The format of the IS-IS TE Node Capability TLV and its sub-TLVs is
the same as the TLV format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions
to IS-IS [RFC3784]. That is, the TLV is composed of 1 octet for the
type, 1 octet specifying the TLV length and a value field.
The IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV has the following format:
TYPE: To be assigned by IANA
LENGTH: Variable, from 3 to 255
VALUE: set of one or more sub-TLVs
Currently two sub-TLVs are defined:
Sub-TLV type Length Name
1 variable DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV
2 variable CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV
Any unrecognized sub-TLV MUST be silently ignored. More sub-TLVs
could be added in the future to handle new capabilities.
The IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is carried within an IS-
IS CAPABILITY TLV which is defined in [ISIS-CAP].
4.2.1. DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV
The DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV is a variable length TLV that contains a
series of bit flags, where each bit correspond to a data plane TE
node capability.
The DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV has the following format:
TYPE: To be assigned by IANA (Suggested value =1)
LENGTH: Variable
VALUE: Array of units of 8 flags numbered from the most
significant bit as bit zero, where each bit represents
a data plane TE node capability.
The following bits are defined:
Bit Capabilities
0 B bit: P2MP Branch Node capability: When set this indicates
that the LSR can act as a branch node on a P2MP LSP
[RFC4461].
1 E bit: P2MP Bud-LSR capability: When set, this indicates
that the LSR can act as a bud LSR on a P2MP LSP, i.e. an
LSR that is both transit and egress [RFC4461].
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al. [Page 7]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-02.txt October 2006
The values for the B and E bits are to be assigned by IANA.
2-7 Reserved for future assignments by IANA.
Unassigned bits are considered as reserved and MUST be set to zero on
transmission by the advertising LSR.
4.2.2. CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV
The CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV is a variable length TLV that contains
a series of bit flags, where each bit correspond to a control plane
TE node capability.
The CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV has the following format:
TYPE: To be assigned by IANA (suggested value = 2).
LENGTH: Variable.
VALUE: Array of units of 8 flags numbered from the most
significant bit as bit zero, where each bit represents
a control plane TE node capability.
The following bits are defined:
Bit Capabilities
0 M bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports
MPLS-TE signaling ([RFC3209]).
1 G bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports
GMPLS signaling ([RFC3473]).
2 P bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports
P2MP MPLS-TE signaling ([RSVP-P2MP]).
3-7 Reserved for future assignments by IANA
The values for the M, G and P bits are to be assigned by IANA.
Unassigned bits are considered as reserved and MUST be set to zero on
transmission by the advertising LSR.
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al. [Page 8]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-02.txt October 2006
5. Elements of procedure
5.1. OSPF
The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is advertised, within an OSPFv2
Router Information LSA (Opaque type of 4 and Opaque ID of 0)
or an OSPFv3 Router information LSA (function code of 12) which are
defined in [OSPF-CAP]. As such, elements of procedure are inherited
from those defined in [RFC2328], [RFC2740], and [OSPF-CAP].
The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV advertises capabilities that
may be taken into account as constraints during path selection. Hence
its flooding scope is area-local, and it MUST be carried within
OSPFv2 type 10 Router Information LSA (as defined in [RFC2370]) or an
OSPFv3 Router Information LSA with the S1 bit set and the S2 bit
cleared (as defined in [RFC2740]).
A router MUST originate a new OSPF router information LSA whenever
the content of the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV changes or
whenever required by the regular OSPF procedure (LSA refresh (every
LSRefreshTime)).
The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is OPTIONAL and MUST appear at
most once in an OSPF Router Information LSA. If a TE Node Capability
Descriptor TLV appears more than once in an OSPF Router Information
LSA, only the first occurrence MUST be processed, other occurrences
MUST be discarded.
The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV MUST contain at least one sub-
TLV. An empty TE Node Capability Descriptor MUST be discarded.
When an OSPF LSA does not contain any TE Node capability Descriptor
TLV, this means that the TE Capabilities of that LSR are unknown.
Note that a change in any of these capabilities MAY trigger CSPF
computation, but MUST not trigger normal SPF computation.
Note also that TE node capabilities are expected to be fairly static.
They may change as the result of configuration change, or software
upgrade. This is expected not to appear more than once a day.
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al. [Page 9]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-02.txt October 2006
5.2. IS-IS
The TE Node Capability TLV is carried within an IS-IS CAPABILITY TLV
defined in [IS-IS-CAP]. As such, elements of procedure are inherited
from those defined in [IS-IS-CAP].
The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV advertises capabilities that
may be taken into account as constraints during path selection. Hence
its flooding is area-local, and MUST be carried within an IS-IS
CAPABILITY TLV having the S flag cleared.
An IS-IS router MUST originate a new IS-IS LSP whenever the content
of any of the TE Node Capability TLV changes or whenever required by
the regular IS-IS procedure (LSP refresh).
The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is OPTIONAL and MUST appear at
most once in an ISIS Router Capability TLV. If a TE Node Capability
Descriptor TLV appears more than once in an ISIS Capability TLV, only
the first occurrence MUST be processed, other occurrences MUST be
discarded.
The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV MUST contain at least one sub-
TLV. An empty TE Node Capability Descriptor MUST be discarded.
When an IS-IS LSP does not contain any TE Node capability Descriptor
TLV, this means that the TE Capabilities of that LSR are unknown.
Note that a change in any of these capabilities MAY trigger CSPF
computation, but MUST not trigger normal SPF computation.
Note also that TE node capabilities are expected to be fairly static.
They may change as the result of configuration change, or software
upgrade. This is expected not to appear more than once a day.
6. Backward compatibility
The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLVs defined in this document do
not introduce any interoperability issue. For OSPF, a router not
supporting the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV MUST just silently
ignore the TLV as specified in [OSPF-CAP]. For IS-IS a router not
supporting the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV MUST just silently
ignore the TLV as specified in [IS-IS-CAP].
When the TE Node capability Descriptor TLV is absent, this means that
the TE Capabilities of that LSR are unknown.
When the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is present, but a sub-TLV
is absent, this means that capabilities in that sub-TLV are unknown.
The absence of a word of capability flags in OSPF or an octet of
capability flags in IS-IS means that these capabilities are unknown.
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al. [Page 10]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-02.txt October 2006
An unknown sub-TLV carried within the TE Node Capability Descriptor
MUST be silently ignored.
7. Security Considerations
This document specifies the content of the TE Node Capability
Descriptor TLV in ISIS and OSPF, to be used for (G)MPLS-TE path
computation. As this TLV is not used for SPF computation or normal
routing, the extensions specified here have no direct effect on IP
routing. Tampering with this TLV may have an effect on Traffic
Engineering computation. Mechanisms defined to secure ISIS Link State
PDUs [ISIS-HMAC], OSPF LSAs [OSPF-SIG], and their TLVs, can be used
to secure this TLV as well.
8. IANA considerations
8.1. OSPF TLVs
IANA is in charge of the assignment of TLV code points for the Router
Information LSA defined in [OSPF-CAP].
IANA will assign a new codepoint for the TE Node Capability
Descriptor TLV defined in this document and carried within the Router
Information LSA (suggested value = 1).
IANA will be in charge of the assignment of sub-TLV code points for
the OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV defined in this document.
New TLV type values may be allocated only by an IETF Consensus
action.
Two sub-TLVs types are defined for this TLV and must be assigned by
IANA:
-DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV (suggested value =1)
-CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV (suggested value =2)
8.2. ISIS TLVs
IANA is in charge of the assignment of sub-TLV code points for the
ISIS CAPABILITY TLV defined in [ISIS-CAP].
IANA will assign a new codepoint for the TE Node Capability
Descriptor TLV defined in this document, and carried within the ISIS
CAPABILITY TLV (suggested value = 1).
IANA will be in charge of the assignment of sub-TLV code points for
the ISIS TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV defined in this document.
New TLV type values may be allocated only by an IETF Consensus
action.
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al. [Page 11]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-02.txt October 2006
Two sub-TLVs types are defined for this TLV and must be assigned by
IANA:
-DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV (suggested value =1)
-CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV (suggested value =2)
Note that ISIS and OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLVs types
must be aligned.
8.3. Capability Registries
8.3.1. Data Plane Capabilities Registry
IANA is requested to manage the space of data plane capability bit
flags carried within the OSPF and ISIS DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLVs,
numbering them in the usual IETF notation starting at zero, with the
most significant bit as bit zero. A single registry must be defined
for both protocols.
New bit numbers may be allocated only by an IETF Consensus action.
Each bit should be tracked with the following qualities:
- Bit number
- Defining RFC
- Name of bit
Two data plane capabilities are defined in this document and must be
assigned by IANA. Here are the suggested values:
1 : B Bit = P2MP Branch LSR capability
2 : E bit = P2MP Bud LSR capability
8.3.2. Control Plane Capabilities Registry
IANA is requested to manage the space of control plane capability bit
flags carried within the OSPF and ISIS CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLVs,
numbering them in the usual IETF notation starting at zero, with the
most significant bit as bit zero. A single registry must be defined
for both protocols.
New bit numbers may be allocated only by an IETF Consensus action.
Each bit should be tracked with the following qualities:
- Bit number
- Defining RFC
- Name of bit
Three control plane capabilities are defined in this document and
must be assigned by IANA. Here are the suggested values:
1 : M bit = MPLS-TE support ([RFC3209])
2 : G bit = GMPLS support (RFC3473))
3 : P bit = P2MP RSVP-TE support ([RSVP-P2MP])
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al. [Page 12]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-02.txt October 2006
9. Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Benoit Fondeviole, Adrian Farrel, Dimitri
Papadimitriou, Acee Lindem and David Ward for their useful comments
and suggestions.
We would also like to thank authors of [LSP-ATTRIBUTE] and [OSPF-CAP]
from which some text of this document has been inspired.
10. References
10.1. Normative references
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998.
[RFC2740] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., and J. Moy, "OSPF for IPv6",
RFC 2740, December 1999.
[RFC2370] Coltun, R., "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 2370,
July 1998.
[IS-IS] "Intermediate System to Intermediate System Intra-Domain
Routing Exchange Protocol " ISO 10589.
[RFC3630] Katz, D., Yeung, D., Kompella, K., "Traffic Engineering
Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September 2003.
[RFC3784] Li, T., Smit, H., "IS-IS extensions for Traffic
Engineering", RFC 3784, June 2004.
[OSPF-CAP] Lindem, A., Shen, N., Aggarwal, R., Shaffer, S., Vasseur,
J.P., "Extensions to OSPF for advertising Optional Router
Capabilities", draft-ietf-ospf-cap, work in progress.
[IS-IS-CAP] Vasseur, J.P. et al., "IS-IS extensions for advertising
router information", draft-ietf-isis-caps, work in progress.
[RFC3567] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "Intermediate System to
Intermediate System (IS-IS) Cryptographic Authentication", RFC 3567,
July 2003.
[RFC2154] Murphy, S., Badger, M., and B. Wellington, "OSPF with
Digital Signatures", RFC 2154, June 1997.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., et. al., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al. [Page 13]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-02.txt October 2006
[RSVP-G] Berger, L, et. al., "GMPLS Signaling RSVP-TE extensions",
RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RSVP-P2MP] Aggarwal, Papadimitriou, Yasukawa, et. al. "Extensions to
RSVP-TE for point-to-multipoint TE LSPs", draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-
p2mp, work in progress.
10.2. Informative References
[OSPF-G] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "OSPF extensions in support of
Generalized Multi-protocol Label Switching", RFC4203, October 2005.
[IS-IS-G] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "IS-IS extensions in support of
Generalized Multi-protocol Label Switching", RFC4205, October 2005.
[RFC4461] Yasukawa, S., et. al., "Signaling Requirements for Point to
Multipoint Traffic Engineered MPLS LSPs", RFC4461, April 2006.
[LSP-ATTRIBUTE] Farrel, A., and al., "Encoding of attributes for MPLS
LSPs establishment Using RSVP-TE", RFC4420, February 2006.
11. Editors' Addresses
Jean-Philippe Vasseur
Cisco Systems, Inc.
1414 Massachusetts Avenue
Boxborough , MA - 01719
USA
Email: jpv@cisco.com
Jean-Louis Le Roux
France Telecom
2, avenue Pierre-Marzin
22307 Lannion Cedex
FRANCE
Email: jeanlouis.leroux@orange-ft.com
12. Contributors' Addresses
Seisho Yasukawa
NTT
3-9-11 Midori-cho,
Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180-8585, Japan
Email: s.yasukawa@hco.ntt.co.jp
Stefano Previdi
Cisco Systems, Inc
Via Del Serafico 200
Roma, 00142
Italy
Email: sprevidi@cisco.com
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al. [Page 14]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-02.txt October 2006
Peter Psenak
Cisco Systems, Inc
Pegasus Park DE Kleetlaan 6A
Diegmen, 1831
BELGIUM
Email: ppsenak@cisco.com
Paul Mabbey
Comcast
USA
13. 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.
Vasseur, Le Roux, et al. [Page 15]
