Network Working Group Thomas D. Nadeau
Internet Draft Monique Morrow
Expires: June 2006 George Swallow
Cisco Systems, Inc.
David Allan
Nortel Networks
Satoru Matsushima
Japan Telecom
December 2005
Operations and Management Requirements
for Multi-Protocol Label Switched Networks
draft-ietf-mpls-oam-requirements-07.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.
Abstract
This document specifies Operations and Management requirements
for Multi-Protocol Label Switching, as well as for applications
MPLS Working Group Expires May 2006 [Page 1]
draft-ietf-mpls-oam-requirements-07 December 7, 2005
of Multi-Protocol Label Switching such as pseudo-wire voice and
virtual private network services. These requirements
have been gathered from network operators who have extensive
experience deploying Multi-Protocol Label Switching networks.
Table of Contents
Abstract ....................................................1
1. Introduction ................................................2
2. Document Conventions ........................................2
2.1 Terminology .................................................2
2.2 Acronyms ....................................................2
3. Motivations .................................................2
4. Requirements ................................................2
5. Security Considerations ....................................26
6. IANA considerations ........................................27
7. References .................................................27
7.1 Normative references .......................................27
7.2 Informative references .....................................29
8. Author's Addresses .........................................29
9. Intellectual Property Notice ...............................30
10. Full Copyright Statement ...................................29
1. Introduction
This document describes requirements for user and data
plane operations and management (OAM) for Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (MPLS). These requirements have been gathered
from network operators who have extensive experience deploying
MPLS networks. This draft specifies OAM requirements
for MPLS, as well as for applications of MPLS.
No specific mechanisms are proposed to address these
requirements at this time. The goal of this draft is to
identify a commonly applicable set of requirements for MPLS
OAM at this time. Specifically, a set of requirements that apply
to the most common set of MPLS networks deployed by service
provider organizations today at the time this document was
written. These requirements can then be used
as a base for network management tool development and to guide
the evolution of currently specified tools, as well as the
specification of OAM functions that are intrinsic to protocols
used in MPLS networks.
Comments should be made directly to the MPLS mailing list
at mpls@lists.ietf.org.
MPLS Working Group Expires May 2006 [Page 2]
draft-ietf-mpls-oam-requirements-07 December 7, 2005
2. Document Conventions
2.1 Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Queuing/buffering Latency: delay caused by packet queuing (value is
variable since depending on the packet
arrival rate in addition to the
dependence on the packet length and the
link throughput).
Probe-based-detection: Active measurement tool which can measure
the consistency of an LSP [LSPPING].
Defect: Any error condition that prevents an Label
Switched Path functioning correctly. For
example, loss of an IGP path will most
likely also result in a Label Switched
Path not being able to deliver traffic to
its destination. Another example is the
breakage of a TE tunnel. These may be due
to physical circuit failures or failure
of switching nodes to operate as expected.
Multi-vendor/multi-provider network
operation typically requires agreed upon
definitions of defects (when it is broken
and when it is not) such that both
recovery procedures and service level
specification impacts can be specified.
Head-end Label Switching
Router (LSR): The beginning of a label switched path. A
head-end LSR is also referred to as an
ingress LSR.
Tail-end Label Switching
Router (LSR): The end of a label switched path. A
tail-end LSR is also referred to as an
egress LSR.
Propagation Latency: The delay added by the propagation of the
MPLS Working Group Expires May 2006 [Page 3]
draft-ietf-mpls-oam-requirements-07 December 7, 2005
packet through the link (fixed value that
depends on the distance of the link and
the propagation speed).
Transmission Latency: The delay added by the transmission of
the packet over the link i.e. the time
it takes put the packet over the media
(value that depends on the link
throughput and packet length).
Processing Latency: The delay added by all the operations
related to the switching of labeled
packet (value is node implementation
specific and may be considered as fixed
and constant for a given type of
equipment).
Node Latency: The delay added by the network element
resulting from of the sum of the
transmission, processing and queuing/
buffering latency
One-hop Delay: The fixed delay experienced by a packet
to reach the next hop resulting from the
of the propagation latency, the
transmission latency and the processing
latency.
Minimum Path Latency: The sum of the one-hop delays experienced
by the packet when traveling from the
ingress to the egress LSR.
Variable Path Latency: The sum of the delays caused by the
queuing latency experienced by the
packet at each node over the path.
Otherwise known as jitter.
2.2 Acronyms
ASBR: Autonomous System Border Router
CE: Customer Edge
PE: Provider Edge
SP: Service Provider
MPLS Working Group Expires May 2006 [Page 4]
draft-ietf-mpls-oam-requirements-07 December 7, 2005
ECMP: Equal Cost Multi-path
LSP: Label Switched Path
LSP Ping: Label Switched Path Ping
LSR: Label Switching Router
OAM: Operations and Management
RSVP: Resource reSerVation Protocol
LDP: Label Distribution Protocol
DoS: Denial of service
3. Motivations
This document was created in order to provide requirements
which could be used to create consistent and useful OAM
functionality that meets operational requirements of those
service providers who have or are deploying MPLS.
4. Requirements
The following sections enumerate the OAM requirements
gathered from service providers who have deployed MPLS
and services based on MPLS networks. Each requirement is
specified in detail to clarify its applicability.
Although the requirements specified herein are defined by
the IETF, they have been made consistent with requirements
gathered by other standards bodies such as the ITU [Y1710].
4.1 Detection of Label Switched Path Defects
The ability to detect defects in a broken Label Switched Path
(LSP) MUST not require manual hop-by-hop troubleshooting of
each LSR used to switch traffic for that LSP. For example,
it is not desirable to manually visit each LSR along the data
plane path used to transport an LSP; instead, this function
MUST be automated and able to be performed at some operator
specified frequency from the origination point of that LSP.
This implies solutions that are interoperable as to allow for
such automatic operation.
Furthermore, the automation of path liveliness is desired in
MPLS Working Group Expires May 2006 [Page 5]
draft-ietf-mpls-oam-requirements-07 December 7, 2005
cases where large numbers of LSPs might be tested. For example,
automated ingress LSR to egress LSR testing functionality is
desired for some LSPs. The goal is to detect LSP path defects
before customers do, and this requires detection and correction
of LSP defects in a manner that is both predictable and
sufficiently within the constraints of the service level agreement
under which the service is being offered. Simply put, the sum of
the time it takes an OAM tool to detect a defect and
the time needed for an operational support system to react to
this defect by possibly correcting it or notifying the customer,
must fall within the bounds of the service level agreement in
question.
Synchronization of detection time bounds by tools used to detect
broken LSPs is required. Failure to specify defect detection
time bounds may result in an ambiguity in test results. If the
time to detect is known, then automated responses can be specified
both with respect to and with regard to resiliency and service
level specification reporting. Further, if synchronization of
detection time bounds is possible, an operational framework can be
established that can guide the design and specification of MPLS
applications.
Although ICMP-based ping [RFC792] can be sent through an LSP as
an IP payload, the use of this tool to verify the defect free
operation of an LSP has the potential for returning erroneous
results (both positive and negative) for a number of reasons. First,
since the ICMP traffic is based on legally addressable IP addressing,
it is possible for ICMP messages that are originally transmitted
inside of an LSP to "fall out of the LSP" at some point along
the path. In these cases, since ICMP packets are routable
a falsely positive response may be returned. In other cases
where the data plane of a specific LSP needs to be tested, it
is difficult to guarantee that traffic based on an ICMP ping
header is parsed and hashed to the same equal-cost multi-paths
as the data traffic.
Any detection mechanisms that depend on receiving status via a
return path SHOULD provide multiple return options with the
expectation that one of them will not be impacted by the original
defect. An example of a case where a false negative might occur
would be a mechanism that requires a functional MPLS return path.
Since MPLS LSPs are unidirectional, it is possible that although
the forward LSP which is the LSP under test, might be functioning,
the response from the destination LSR might be lost, thus giving
the source LSR the false impression that the forward LSP is
defective. However, if an alternate return path could be
MPLS Working Group Expires May 2006 [Page 6]
draft-ietf-mpls-oam-requirements-07 December 7, 2005
specified -- say IP for example -- then the source could
specify this as the return path to the destination, and in
this case, would receive a response indicating to it that
the return LSP is defective.
The OAM packet MUST follow exactly the customer data path in order
to reflect path liveliness used by customer data. Particular cases
of interest are forwarding mechanisms such as equal cost multi-path
(ECMP) scenarios within the operator's network whereby flows are
load-shared across parallel (i.e., equal IGP cost) paths. Where
the customer traffic may be spread over multiple paths, what is
required is to be able to detect failures on any of the path
permutations. Where the spreading mechanism is payload specific,
payloads need to have forwarding that is common with the traffic
under test. Satisfying these requirements introduces complexity
into ensuring that ECMP connectivity permutations are exercised,
and that defect detection occurs in a reasonable amount of time.
4.2 Diagnosis of a Broken Label Switched Path
The ability to diagnose a broken LSP and to isolate the failed
component (i.e., link or node) in the path is required. For
example, note that specifying recovery actions for mis-branching
defects in an LDP network is a particularly difficult case.
Diagnosis of defects and isolation of the failed component is
best accomplished via a path trace function which can return the
the entire list of LSRs and links used by a certain LSP (or at
least the set of LSRs/links up to the location of the defect) is
required. The tracing capability SHOULD include the ability to
trace recursive paths, such as when nested LSPs are used. This
path trace function MUST also be capable of diagnosing LSP
mis-merging by permitting comparison of expected vs. actual
forwarding behavior at any LSR in the path. The path trace
capability SHOULD be capable of being executed from both the
head-end Label Switching Router (LSR) and may permit downstream
path components to be traced from an intermediate mid-point LSR.
Additionally, the path trace function MUST have the ability to
support equal cost multi-path scenarios described above in
section 4.1.
4.3 Path characterization
The path characterization function is the ability to reveal details
of LSR forwarding operations. These details can then be compared
later during subsequent testing relevant to OAM functionality.
This would include but is not limited to:
MPLS Working Group Expires May 2006 [Page 7]
draft-ietf-mpls-oam-requirements-07 December 7, 2005
- consistent use of pipe or uniform time to live (TTL) models by
an LSR [RFC3443].
- sufficient details that allow the test origin to
excursive all path permutations related to load spreading
(e.g. ECMP).
- stack operations performed by the LSR, such as pushes, pops,
and TTL propagation at penultimate hop LSRs.
4.4 Service Level Agreement Measurement
Mechanisms are required to measure the diverse aspects of Service
Level Agreements which include:
- defect free forwarding. The service is considered to be
available and the other aspects of performance measurement
listed below have meaning, or the service is unavailable and
other aspects of performance measurement do not.
- latency - amount of time required for traffic to transit
the network
- packet loss
- jitter - measurement of latency variation
Such measurements can be made independently of the user traffic
or via a hybrid of user traffic measurement and OAM probing.
At least one mechanism is required to measure the number
of OAM packets. In addition, the ability to measure the
quantitative aspects of LSPs such as jitter, delay, latency and
loss MUST be available in order to determine whether or not the
traffic for a specific LSP are traveling within the
operator-specified tolerances.
Any method considered SHOULD be capable of measuring the latency
of an LSP with minimal impact on network resources. See section
2.1 for definitions of the various quantitative aspects of LSPs.
4.5 Frequency of OAM Execution
The operator MUST have the flexibility to configure OAM
parameters insofar-as to meet their specific operational
requirements.
This includes the frequency of the execution of any OAM
functions. The capability to synchronize OAM operations is required
as to to permit consistent measurement of service level agreements.
To elaborate, there are defect conditions such as mis-branching or
MPLS Working Group Expires May 2006 [Page 8]
draft-ietf-mpls-oam-requirements-07 December 7, 2005
misdirection of traffic for which probe-based detection mechanisms
that incur significant mismatches in their detection frequency may
result in flapping. This can be addressed either by synchronizing
the rate or having the probes self-identify their probe rate.
For example, when the probing mechanisms are bootstrapping,
they might negotiate and ultimately agree on a probing rate,
therefore providing a consistent probing frequency and avoiding
the aforementioned problems.
One observation would be that wide-spread deployment of MPLS, common
implementation of monitoring tools and the need for
inter-carrier synchronization of defect and service level
specification handling will drive specification of OAM parameters
to commonly agreed on values and such values will have to be
harmonized with the surrounding technologies (e.g. SONET/SDH,
ATM etc.) in order to be useful. This will become particularly
important as networks scale and mis-configuration can result in
churn, alarm flapping etc.
4.6 Alarm Suppression, Aggregation and Layer Coordination
Network elements MUST provide alarm suppression functionality that
prevents the generation of superfluous generation of alarms by
simply discarding them (or not generating them in the first place),
or by aggregating them together, and thereby greatly reducing the
number of notifications emitted. When viewed in conjunction with
requirement 4.7 below, this typically requires fault notification
to the LSP egress that may have specific time constraints if the
application using the LSP independently implements path continuity
testing (for example ATM I.610 Continuity check (CC)[I610]).
These constraints apply to LSPs that are monitored. The nature of
MPLS applications allows for the possibility to have multiple MPLS
applications attempt to respond to defects simultaneously. For
example, layer-3 MPLS VPNs that utilize Traffic Engineered tunnels,
where a failure occurs on the LSP carrying the Traffic Engineered
tunnel. This failure would affect he VPN traffic that uses the
tunnel's LSP. Mechanisms are required to coordinate network response
to defects.
4.7 Support for OAM Inter-working for Fault Notification
An LSR supporting the inter-working of one or more networking
technologies over MPLS MUST be able to translate an MPLS defect
into the native technology's error condition. For example, errors
occurring over a MPLS transport LSP that supports an emulated
MPLS Working Group Expires May 2006 [Page 9]
draft-ietf-mpls-oam-requirements-07 December 7, 2005
ATM VC MUST translate errors into native ATM OAM Alarm Indication
Signal (AIS) cells at the termination points of the LSP. The
mechanism SHOULD consider possible bounded detection time
parameters, e.g., a "hold off" function before reacting as to
synchronize with the OAM functions.
One goal would be alarm suppression by the upper layer using
the LSP. As observed in section 4.5, this requires that MPLS
perform detection in a bounded timeframe in order to initiate
alarm suppression prior to the upper layer independently
detecting the defect.
4.8 Error Detection and Recovery.
Recovery from a fault by a network element can be facilitated by
MPLS OAM procedures. These procedures will detect a broader range
of defects than that of simple link and node failures.
Since MPLS LSPs may span multiple routing areas and service provider
domains, fault recovery and error detection should be possible
in these configuration as well as in the more simplified
single-area/domain configurations.
Recovery from faults SHOULD be automatic. It is a requirement that
faults SHOULD be detected (and possibly corrected) by the network
operator prior to customers of the service in question detecting
them.
4.9 Standard Management Interfaces
The wide-spread deployment of MPLS requires common information
modeling of management and control of OAM functionality.
Evidence of this is reflected in the standard IETF MPLS-related
MIB modules (e.g. [RFC3813][RFC3812][RFC3814]) for fault,
statistics and configuration management. These standard interfaces
provide operators with common programmatic interface access to
operations and management functions and their status. However,
gaps in coverage of MIB modules to OAM and other features
exists; therefore, MIB modules corresponding to new protocol
functions or network tools are required.
4.10 Detection of Denial of Service Attacks
The ability to detect denial of service (DoS) attacks against the
data or control planes MUST be part of any security management
related to MPLS OAM tools or techniques.
4.11 Per-LSP Accounting Requirements
MPLS Working Group Expires May 2006 [Page 10]
draft-ietf-mpls-oam-requirements-07 December 7, 2005
In an MPLS network, service providers (SPs) can measure traffic
from an LSR to the egress of the network using some MPLS related
MIBs, for example. This means that it is a reasonable to know how
much traffic is traveling from where to where (i.e., a traffic
matrix) by analyzing the flow of traffic. Therefore, traffic
accounting in an MPLS network can be summarized as the following
three items.
(1) Collecting information to design network
Providers and their customers MAY need to verify high-level
service level specifications, either to continuously
optimize their networks, or to offer guaranteed bandwidth
services. Therefore, traffic accounting to monitor MPLS
applications is required.
(2) Providing a Service Level Specification
For the purpose of optimized network design, a service
provider may offer the traffic information. Optimizing
network design needs this information.
(3) Inter-AS environment
Service providers that offer inter-AS services require
accounting of those services.
These three motivations need to satisfy the following.
- In (1) and (2), collection of information on a per-LSP
basis is a minimum level of granularity of collecting
accounting information at both of ingress and egress
of an LSP.
- In (3), SP's ASBR carry out interconnection functions as an
intermediate LSR. Therefore, identifying a pair of ingress
and egress LSRs using each LSP is needed to determine the
cost of the service that a customer is using.
4.11.1 Requirements
Accounting on a per-LSP basis encompasses the following set of
functions:
(1) At an ingress LSR accounting of traffic through LSPs
beginning at each egress in question.
MPLS Working Group Expires May 2006 [Page 11]
draft-ietf-mpls-oam-requirements-07 December 7, 2005
(2) At an intermediate LSR, accounting of traffic through
LSPs for each pair of ingress to egress.
(3) At egress LSR, accounting of traffic through LSPs
for each ingress.
(4) All LSRs that contain LSPs that are being measured
need to have a common identifier to distinguish each LSP.
The identifier MUST be unique to each LSP, and its mapping to
LSP SHOULD be provided from whether manual or automatic
configuration.
In the case of non-merged LSPs, this can be achieved by
simply reading traffic counters for the label stack associated
with the LSP at any LSR along its path. However, in order to
measure merged LSPs, an LSR MUST have a means to distinguish
the source of each flow so as to disambiguate the statistics.
4.11.2 Location of Accounting
It is not realistic to perform the just described operations by
LSRs in a network on all LSPs that exist in a network.
At a minimum, per-LSP based accounting SHOULD be performed on the
edges of the network -- at the edges of both LSPs and the MPLS
domain.
5. Security Considerations
Provisions to any of the network mechanisms designed to satisfy
the requirements described herein are required to prevent their
unauthorized use. Likewise, these network mechanisms MUST
provide a means by which an operator can prevent denial of
service attacks if those network mechanisms are used in such
an attack.
LSP mis-merging has security implications beyond that of simply
being a network defect. LSP mis-merging can happen due to a number
of potential sources of failure, some of which (due to MPLS label
stacking) are new to MPLS.
The performance of diagnostic functions and path characterization
involve extracting a significant amount of information about
network construction which the network operator MAY consider
private.
6. IANA Considerations
MPLS Working Group Expires May 2006 [Page 12]
draft-ietf-mpls-oam-requirements-07 December 7, 2005
This document creates no new requirements on IANA namespaces
[RFC2434].
7. References
7.1 Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
7.2 Informative References
[LSPPING] Kompella, K., G. Swallow, " Detecting MPLS Data Plane
Failures", Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-11.txt,
November 2005.
[RFC3812] Srinivasan, C., Viswanathan, A. and T.
Nadeau, "Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)
Management Information Base (MIB)",
RFC3812, June 2004.
[RFC3813] Srinivasan, C., Viswanathan, A. and T.
Nadeau, "Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Label Switching Router (LSR)
Management Information Base (MIB)", RFC3813,
June 2004.
[RFC3814] Nadeau, T., Srinivasan, C., and A.
Viswanathan, "Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Forwarding Equivalence Class To Next
Hop Label Forwarding Entry (FEC-To-NHLFE)
Management Information Base (MIB)", RFC3814,
June 2004.
[Y1710] ITU-T Recommendation Y.1710, "Requirements for
OAM Functionality In MPLS Networks"
[I610] ITU-T Recommendation I.610, "B-ISDN operations and
maintenance principles and functions", February 1999
[RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing
an IANA Considerations section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC
2434, October 1998.
MPLS Working Group Expires May 2006 [Page 13]
draft-ietf-mpls-oam-requirements-07 December 7, 2005
[RFC792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", RFC792,
September 1981.
[RFC3443] Agarwal, P, Akyol, B., "Time To Live (TTL) Processing in
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Networks.", RFC3443,
January 2003.
8. Authors' Addresses
Thomas D. Nadeau
Cisco Systems, Inc.
300 Beaver Brook Road
Boxboro, MA 01719
Phone: +1-978-936-1470
Email: tnadeau@cisco.com
Monique Jeanne Morrow
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Glatt-Com, 2nd Floor
CH-8301
Switzerland
Voice: (0)1 878-9412
Email: mmorrow@cisco.com
George Swallow
Cisco Systems, Inc.
300 Beaver Brook Road
Boxboro, MA 01719
Voice: +1-978-936-1398
Email: swallow@cisco.com
David Allan
Nortel Networks
3500 Carling Ave.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
Voice: 1-613-763-6362
Email: dallan@nortelnetworks.com
Satoru Matsushima
Japan Telecom
1-9-1, <, Minato-ku
Tokyo, 105-7316 Japan
Phone: +81-3-6889-1092
Email: satoru@ft.solteria.net
MPLS Working Group Expires May 2006 [Page 14]
draft-ietf-mpls-oam-requirements-07 December 7, 2005
9. 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.
10. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
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.
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.
11. Acknowledgment
MPLS Working Group Expires May 2006 [Page 15]
draft-ietf-mpls-oam-requirements-07 December 7, 2005
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
The authors wish to acknowledge and thank the following
individuals for their valuable comments to this document:
Adrian Smith, British Telecom; Chou Lan Pok, SBC; Mr.
Ikejiri, NTT Communications and Mr.Kumaki of KDDI.
Hari Rakotoranto, Miya Kohno, Cisco Systems; Luyuan Fang, AT&T;
Danny McPherson, TCB; Dr.Ken Nagami, Ikuo Nakagawa, Intec Netcore,
and David Meyer.
MPLS Working Group Expires May 2006 [Page 16]
