Network Working Group Y. Lee
Internet Draft Huawei
Intended status: Standards Track G. Bernstein
Expires: April 2010 Grotto Networking
October 12, 2009
OSPF Enhancement for Signal and Network Element Compatibility for
Wavelength Switched Optical Networks
draft-lee-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf-00.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and 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
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 12, 2007.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
Lee and Bernstein Expires April 12, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks October 2009
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Abstract
This document provides GMPLS OSPF routing enhancements to support
signal compatibility constraints associated with WSON network
elements. These routing enhancements are required in common optical
or hybrid electro-optical networks where not all of the optical
signals in the network are compatible with all network elements
participating in the network.
This compatibility constraint model is applicable to common optical
or hybrid electro optical systems such as OEO switches, regenerators,
and wavelength converters since such systems can be limited to
processing only certain types of WSON signals.
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 [RFC2119].
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................3
2. WSON Network Element Compatibility Information Model...........3
2.1. Modulation Type List......................................4
2.2. FEC Type List.............................................4
2.3. Bit Rate Range List.......................................4
2.4. Acceptable Client Signal List.............................4
3. GMPLS OSPF Routing Protocol Enhancement to support Compatibility5
3.1. Modulation Type List sub-TLV..............................5
3.2. FEC Type List sub-TLV.....................................7
3.3. Bit Rate Range List sub-TLV...............................9
3.4. Processing Capability List sub-TLV.......................10
3.5. Client Signal List sub-TLV...............................12
4. Security Considerations.......................................12
5. IANA Considerations...........................................12
6. Acknowledgments...............................................12
7. References....................................................13
7.1. Normative References.....................................13
7.2. Informative References...................................13
8. Contributors..................................................14
Lee and Bernstein Expires April 12, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks October 2009
Authors' Addresses...............................................14
Intellectual Property Statement..................................14
Disclaimer of Validity...........................................15
1. Introduction
The document [WSON-Compat] explains how to extend the wavelength
switched optical network (WSON) control plane to allow both multiple
WSON signal types and common hybrid electro optical systems. In WSON,
not all of the optical signals in the network are compatible with all
network elements participating in the network. Therefore, signal
compatibility is an important constraint in path computation in a
WSON.
This document provides GMPLS OSPF routing enhancements to support
signal compatibility constraints associated with WSON network
elements. These routing enhancements are required in common optical
or hybrid electro-optical networks where not all of the optical
signals in the network are compatible with all network elements
participating in the network.
This compatibility constraint model is applicable to common optical
or hybrid electro optical systems such as OEO switches, regenerators,
and wavelength converters since such systems can be limited to
processing only certain types of WSON signals.
2. WSON Network Element Compatibility Information Model
In [WSON-Compat] it was explained that a network element (NE) in a
WSON may or may not be compatible with a particular optical signal
based upon the following criteria:
1. Limited wavelength range -- Already modeled in GMPLS for WSON
2. Modulation type restriction (including forward error correction -
FEC- coding)
3. Bit rate range restriction (includes a particular rate)
4. Client signal dependence
In the following we furnish an information model for the above
properties. This model can be either applied to all ports of a
network element, i.e., NE wide, or to individual ports, i.e., on a
link level.
Lee and Bernstein Expires April 12, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks October 2009
2.1. Modulation Type List
Modulation type, also known as optical tributary signal class, comes
in two distinct flavors: (i) ITU-T standardized types; (ii) vendor
specific types. The permitted modulation type list can include any
mixture of standardized and vendor specific types.
<modulation-list>::= [<STANDARD_MODULATION>|<VENDOR_MODULATION>]...
Where the STANDARD_MODULATION object just represents one of the ITU-T
standardized optical tributary signal class and the VENDOR_MODULATION
object identifies one vendor specific modulation type.
2.2. FEC Type List
Some devices can handle more than one FEC type and hence a list is
needed.
<fec-list>::= [<FEC>]
Where the FEC object represents one of the ITU-T standardized FEC
defined in [G.709] and [G.707] or vendor-specific FEC.
2.3. Bit Rate Range List
Some devices can handle more than one particular bit rate range and
hence a list is needed.
<rate-range-list>::= [<rate-range>]...
<rate-range>::=<START_RATE><END_RATE>
Where the START_RATE object represents the lower end of the range and
the END_RATE object represents the higher end of the range.
2.4. Acceptable Client Signal List
The list is simply:
<client-signal-list>::=[<GPID>]...
Where the Generalized Protocol Identifiers (GPID) object represents
one of the IETF standardized GPID values as defined in [RFC3471] and
[RFC4328].
Lee and Bernstein Expires April 12, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks October 2009
3. GMPLS OSPF Routing Protocol Enhancement to support Compatibility
This section describes GMPLS OSPF Routing protocol enhancement based
on network element compatibility information model defined in the
previous section. Note that the encoding defined in this section is
specific for OSPF extension, but similar encoding can be applied to
IS-IS and alternative methods distributing traffic engineering
information.
In [RFC4202], Routing extensions for GMPLS, the concept of an
Interface Switching Capability Descriptors is defined. In particular
a "Lambda-Switch Capable" (LSC) descriptor is listed. Reference
[RFC4202] also states: "Depending on a particular Interface Switching
Capability, the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor may include
additional information, as specified below." However no mention is
made of the compatibility criteria discussed in [WSON-Compat], i.e.,
modulation type, FEC type, bit rate range, or client signal. The only
additional information currently defined is "reservable bandwidth per
priority".
In references [RFC4203] and [RFC5307] a variable length sub-TLV type
for Interface Switching Capability Descriptors (ISCD) is defined.
There is a section in the general ISCD sub-TLV called "Switching
Capability-specific information". They then state: "When the
Switching Capability field is LSC, there is no Switching Capability
specific information field present."
[It is an open question whether we can add new information to the
existing LSC ISCD. In either case the following suggests an encoding
that could be used within the switching capability specific
information field or as separate sub-TLVs.]
3.1. Modulation Type List sub-TLV
The modulation type list sub-TLV may consist of two different types
of fields: a standard modulation field or a vendor specific
modulation field. Both start with the same 32 bit header shown below.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|S|I| Modulation ID | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Lee and Bernstein Expires April 12, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks October 2009
Where S bit set to 1 indicates a standardized modulation format and S
bit set to 0 indicates a vendor specific modulation format. The
length is the length in bytes of the entire modulation type field.
Where I bit set to 1 indicates it is an input modulation constraint
and I bit set to 0 indicates it is an output modulation constraint.
Note that if an output modulation is not specified then it is implied
that it is the same as the input modulation. In such case, no
modulation conversion is performed.
The format for the standardized type for the input modulation is
given by:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1|1| Modulation ID | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Possible additional modulation parameters depending upon |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: the modulation ID :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Modulation ID (S bit = 1); Input modulation (I bit = 1)
Takes on the following currently defined values:
0 Reserved
1 optical tributary signal class NRZ 1.25G
2 optical tributary signal class NRZ 2.5G
3 optical tributary signal class NRZ 10G
4 optical tributary signal class NRZ 40G
5 optical tributary signal class RZ 40G
Note that future modulation types may require additional parameters
in their characterization.
Lee and Bernstein Expires April 12, 2010 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks October 2009
The format for vendor specific modulation field (for input
constraint) is given by:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0|1| Vendor Modulation ID | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Enterprise Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: Any vendor specific additional modulation parameters :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Vendor Modulation ID
This is a vendor assigned identifier for the modulation type.
Enterprise Number
A unique identifier of an organization encoded as a 32-bit integer.
Enterprise Numbers are assigned by IANA and managed through an IANA
registry [RFC2578].
Vendor Specific Additional parameters
There can be potentially additional parameters characterizing the
vendor specific modulation.
3.2. FEC Type List sub-TLV
The FEC type list sub-TLV may consist of two different types of
fields: a standard FEC field or a vendor specific FEC field. Both
start with the same 32 bit header shown below.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|S|I| FEC ID | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Possible additional FEC parameters depending upon |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: the FEC ID :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Lee and Bernstein Expires April 12, 2010 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks October 2009
Where S bit set to 1 indicates a standardized FEC format and S bit
set to 0 indicates a vendor specific FEC format. The length is the
length in bytes of the entire FEC type field.
Where I bit set to 1 indicates it is an input FEC constraint and I
bit set to 0 indicates it is an output FEC constraint.
Note that if an output FEC is not specified then it is implied that
it is the same as the input FEC. In such case, no FEC conversion is
performed.
The length is the length in bytes of the entire FEC type field.
The format for input standard FEC field is given by:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1|1| FEC ID | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Possible additional FEC parameters depending upon |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: the FEC ID :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Takes on the following currently defined values for the standard
FEC ID:
0 Reserved
1 G.709 RS FEC
2 G.709V compliant Ultra FEC
The format for input vendor-specific FEC field is given by:
Lee and Bernstein Expires April 12, 2010 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks October 2009
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0|1| Vendor FEC ID | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Enterprise Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: Any vendor specific additional FEC parameters :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Vendor FEC ID
This is a vendor assigned identifier for the FEC type.
Enterprise Number
A unique identifier of an organization encoded as a 32-bit integer.
Enterprise Numbers are assigned by IANA and managed through an IANA
registry [RFC2578].
Vendor Specific Additional FEC parameters
There can be potentially additional parameters characterizing the
vendor specific FEC.
3.3. Bit Rate Range List sub-TLV
The bit rate range list sub-TLV makes use of the following bit rate
range field:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Starting Bit Rate |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Ending Bit Rate |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The starting and ending bit rates are given as 32 bit IEEE floating
point numbers in bits per second. Note that the starting bit rate is
less than or equal to the ending bit rate.
Lee and Bernstein Expires April 12, 2010 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks October 2009
The bit rate range list sub-TLV is then given by:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Bit Range Field #1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: : :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Bit Range Field #M +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
3.4. Processing Capability List sub-TLV
The processing capability list sub-TLV is a list of WSON network
element (NE) that can perform signal processing functions including:
1. Regeneration capability
2. Fault and performance monitoring
3. Vendor Specific capability
Note that the code points for Fault and performance monitoring and
vendor specific capability are subject to further study.
The processing capability list sub-TLV is then given by:
Lee and Bernstein Expires April 12, 2010 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks October 2009
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Processing Cap ID | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Possible additional capability parameters depending upon |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: the processing ID :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
When the processing Cap ID is "regeneration capability", the
following additional capability parameters are provided in the sub-
TLV:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| T | C | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where T bit indicates the type of regenerator:
T=0: Reserved
T=1: 1R Regenerator
T=2: 2R Regenerator
T=3: 3R Regenerator
Where C bit indicates the capability of regenerator:
C=0: Reserved
C=1: Fixed Regeneration Point
C=2: Selective Regeneration Pools
Note that when the capability of regenerator is indicated to be
Selective Regeneration Pools, regeneration pool properties such as
ingress and egress restrictions and availability need to be
specified. This encoding is to be determined in the later revision.
Lee and Bernstein Expires April 12, 2010 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks October 2009
3.5. Client Signal List sub-TLV
The acceptable client signal list sub-TLV is a list of Generalized
Protocol Identifiers (GPIDs). GPIDs are assigned by IANA and many are
defined in [RFC3471] and [RFC4328].
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Number of GPIDs | GPID #1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: | :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| GPID #N | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where the number of GPIDs is an integer greater than or equal to one.
4. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce any further security issues other
than those discussed in [RFC 3630], [RFC 4203].
5. IANA Considerations
TBD.
6. Acknowledgments
This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.
Lee and Bernstein Expires April 12, 2010 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks October 2009
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.
[RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471,
January 2003.
[G.694.1] ITU-T Recommendation G.694.1, "Spectral grids for WDM
applications: DWDM frequency grid", June, 2002.
[RFC4202] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing Extensions
in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005
[RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005.
[RFC4328] Papadimitriou, D., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical
Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328, January 2006.
[RFC5307] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "IS-IS Extensions
in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 5307, October 2008.
7.2. Informative References
[WSON-Compat] G. Bernstein, Y. Lee, B. Mack-Crane, "WSON Signal
Characteristics and Network Element Compatibility
Constraints for GMPLS ", draft-bernstein-ccamp-wson
compatibility, work in progress.
Lee and Bernstein Expires April 12, 2010 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks October 2009
8. Contributors
Authors' Addresses
Young Lee (ed.)
Huawei Technologies
1700 Alma Drive, Suite 100
Plano, TX 75075
USA
Phone: (972) 509-5599 (x2240)
Email: ylee@huawei.com
Greg M. Bernstein (ed.)
Grotto Networking
Fremont California, USA
Phone: (510) 573-2237
Email: gregb@grotto-networking.com
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF Trust 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 any IETF 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.
Copies of Intellectual Property 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
Lee and Bernstein Expires April 12, 2010 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Wavelength Switched Optical Networks October 2009
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
any standard or specification contained in an IETF Document. Please
address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
All IETF Documents and the information contained therein are provided
on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE
IETF TRUST 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 THEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE
ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Lee and Bernstein Expires April 12, 2010 [Page 15]