INTERNET-DRAFT Tomohiro Otani (Editor)
Intended Status: Informational Kenichi Ogaki (Editor)
Expires: September 2007 KDDI R&D Labs
Daniel King (Editor)
Aria Networks
March 2007
Considering Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic
Engineering Attributes During Path Computation
Document: draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-cspf-constraints-05.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.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document provides guidelines for the consideration of
Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Traffic-
Engineering (TE) attributes for computation of routes for Label
Switched Paths (LSPs) in a GMPLS network.
This document summarizes how GMPLS TE attributes on ingress links,
transit links, and egress links may be treated as path computation
constraints to determine the route of a GMPLS Label Switched Path.
T. Otani et al. Expires September 2007 [Page 1]
draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-cspf-constraints-05.txt March 2007
Table of Contents
1. Introduction.................................................... 2
2. Assumed Network Model........................................... 3
2.1 GMPLS TE Attributes Consideration for Path Calculation ....... 3
2.2 Considered Network Model...................................... 3
3. Path Computation Considerations................................. 4
3.1. TDM-Switch Capable........................................... 5
3.2. Lambda Switch Capable (LSC).................................. 6
3.3. Fiber Switch Capable (FSC)................................... 9
3.4. Layer 2 Switch Capable (L2SC)............................... 12
3.5. Packet Switch Capable (PSC)................................. 12
4. Security Consideration......................................... 12
5. IANA Considerations............................................ 13
6. Acknowledgements............................................... 13
7. Intellectual Property Considerations........................... 13
8. References..................................................... 13
8.1 Normative References......................................... 13
8.2 Informative References....................................... 14
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 [RFC2119].
1. Introduction
A network is, in general, controlled and managed taking into account
various attributes of the underlying technologies of the physical and
logical links and nodes. In a network operated using Generalized
Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) protocols, many of these
Traffic Engineering (TE) attributes are advertised using routing
protocols [RFC3945], [RFC4202].
To establish a GMPLS Label Switched Path (LSP) it is necessary to
compute a route or path for that LSP either hop-by-hop or by the
pre-calculation of part or all of the path. In order that the route
selected is capable of satisfying the requirements of the user or
application that will use the LSP the computation must be constrained
by a set of LSP-specific requirements and the TE attributes
advertised within the network. Further, considerations of technology
and node or link capabilities may also provide restrictions to the
feasibility of LSP establishment on certain routes, and this can be
deduced from the TE attributes advertised within the network and used
by the path computation algorithms to select only viable routes.
In a mixed, integrated network (for example, one containing optical
switches and packet routers) these constraints may vary and are
understood differently for different equipment and different LSPs.
T. Otani et al. Expires September 2007 [Page 2]
draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-cspf-constraints-05.txt March 2007
This document provides guidelines to facilitate path computation for
GMPLS LSPs by summarizing how GMPLS TE attributes on ingress links,
transit links, and egress links may be treated as path computation
constraints to determine the route of a GMPLS Label Switched Path.
2. Assumed Network Model
2.1 GMPLS TE Attributes Consideration for Path Calculation
For path computation to establish GMPLS LSPs correctly, various
GMPLS attributes [RFC4202], [RFC4203] of links as well as
nodes, as indicated below, must be taken into account in a GMPLS
network environment in addition to TE attributes of packet based
network [RFC3630].
(1) Encoding-type: Synchronous Optical Network(SONET)/Synchronous
Digital Hierarchy (SDH), Lambda, Ethernet, etc.
(2) Switching capability: Time Division Multiplex (TDM), Lambda,
Fiber, etc.
(3) Bandwidth: OC-192, OC-48, GbE, 10GbE, etc.
These logical attributes have a very tight relationship with
underlying physical technologies such as SONET/SDH, Optical Transport
Network (OTN) or Ethernet in terms of links, and all-optical
switches, SONET/SDH-basis digital cross connect or electrical-basis
optical switches in terms of nodes. Therefore, the GMPLS LSPs must
satisfy logical constrains as well as corresponding physical
constraints. These constraints are sometimes differently understood
among different layers, and a logically computed GMPLS LSP may
violate the physical constraints, therefore, a consistent guideline
to solve this issue should be formulated.
2.2 Considered Network Model
Figure 1 depicts a typical GMPLS network, consisting of an ingress
link, a transit link as well as an egress link, to investigate a
consistent guideline for GMPLS path computation. Each link
at each interface has its own switching capability, encoding type
and bandwidth.
The consideration here is based on a single domain GMPLS network, but
the analysis maybe applicable to an inter-domain GMPLS networks.
Ingress Transit Egress
+-----+ link1-2 +-----+ link2-3 +-----+ link3-4 +-----+
|Node1|------------>|Node2|------------>|Node3|------------>|Node4|
| |<------------| |<------------| |<------------| |
+-----+ link2-1 +-----+ link3-2 +-----+ link4-3 +-----+
Figure 1: GMPLS Network Model
T. Otani et al. Expires September 2007 [Page 3]
draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-cspf-constraints-05.txt March 2007
For the simplicity of the analysis in path consideration, the below
basic assumptions are made when the LSP is created.
(1) Switching capabilities (SC) of outgoing links from the
ingress and egress nodes (link1-2 and link4-3 in Figure 1)
must be consistent with each other.
(2) SC of all transit links including incoming links to the
ingress and egress nodes (link2-1 and link3-4) should be
consistent with switching type of a LSP to be created.
(3) Encoding-types of all transit links should be consistent
with encoding type of a LSP to be created.
A GMPLS network maybe a multi-layer network, which is composed of
multiple nodes with different switching capabilities and interface
encoding types. Therefore, a hierarchical structure may be considered
in path computation. In such a case, the combination between the
switching type and encoding type of a desired LSP, and those of all
transit links described as the table in following section may be
acceptable. One of advertised multiple interface switching capability
descriptors for the same link [RFC4202] should be also appropriately
chosen as the attribute for the link.
Bandwidth of each TE link is maximum LSP bandwidth in interface
switching capability descriptor at the priority for a desired LSP
[RFC4203], and encoding-types of incoming and outgoing links on the
same interface (for example, link1-2 and link2-1) should be
consistent with each other.
In case that the network is comprised of numbered links and
unnumbered links [RFC3477], an ingress node, who is able to support
numbered links and unnumbered links may choose both links being part
of the same desired LSP.
3. Path Computation Considerations
In this section, we consider GMPLS constraints to be satisfied in
different cases of link attributes. When a LSP indicated in below
tables is created, the path computation must choose the route so
as to satisfy switching capability, encoding type and bandwidth at
the ingress link, transiting links and the egress link indicated in
columns next to the created LSP, considering underlying physical
constraints. Here, almost cases of GMPLS path computation
consideration are summarized in this document, however, some cases
will be added in a future version.
T. Otani et al. Expires September 2007 [Page 4]
draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-cspf-constraints-05.txt March 2007
3.1. TDM-Switch Capable
Table 1: Desired GMPLS Attributes in the Case of TDM-SC
+-------------+---------+------------+---------+------------------+
|LSP attribute|Ingress |Transit |Egress |Remarks |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+------------------+
| | |TDM | |TDM | |
| | +---------+ +---------+ |
|SC*|TDM |L2SC |TDM |L2SC | |
| | +---------+ +---------+ |
| | |PSC | |PSC | |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+ |
| |SONET/SDH|SONET/SDH|SONET/SDH |SONET/SDH|Specified in G.691|
| +---------+---------+------------+---------+ |
|Enc|Ethernet |Ethernet |SONET/SDH |Ethernet |Specified in IEEE |
| | | |or Ethernet | | |
| +---------+---------+------------+---------+ |
| |OTN* |OTN |OTN |OTN | |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+ |
|BW*|X |<=bw* |<=bw* |<=bw* | |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+------------------+
* SC in LSP means a desired switching type of LSP.
* OTN interfaces are equivalent to digital wrapper technology in this
document.
* BW is the desired bandwidth of the LSP
* bw is the bandwidth available on the link
In this case, since the interface with TDM SC supports sub-rate
switching, BW X can be equal to or less than bw of ingress, transit
and egress links, and must be larger than the minimum LSP bandwidth
in the interface switching capability descriptor. Sub-rate
switching is unsuited for a hierarchical LSP, because the lower-layer
link usually has larger granular bandwidth than that layer except
PSC-x, for example a TDM LSP with the desired bandwidth of OC-12
should not use a lambda switching capable link with the bandwidth of
OC-48 as a transit link. In such a case, a lambda LSP is created in
the lower (lambda) layer in advance, and may be advertised as a TDM
TE link.
T. Otani et al. Expires September 2007 [Page 5]
draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-cspf-constraints-05.txt March 2007
3.2. Lambda Switch Capable (LSC)
Table 2.1: The Case of End-Point(Ingress/Egress) Link Attributes
Without Lambda Encoding
+-------------+---------+------------+---------+------------------+
|LSP attribute|Ingress |Transit |Egress |Remarks |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+------------------+
| | |LSC | |LSC | |
| | +---------+ +---------+ |
|SC |LSC |TDM |LSC |TDM | |
| | +---------+ +---------+ |
| | |L2SC | |L2SC | |
| | +---------+ +---------+ |
| | |PSC | |PSC | |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+[RFC4202] |
| |SONET/SDH|SONET/SDH|SONET/SDH |SONET/SDH|section 3.6, 3.9 |
| | | |or lambda | |Specified in G.691|
| +---------+---------+------------+---------+ |
|Enc|Ethernet |Ethernet |Ethernet |Ethernet |Specified in IEEE |
| | | |or lambda | | |
| +---------+---------+------------+---------+ |
| |OTN |OTN |OTN |OTN |Specified in G.709|
| | | |or lambda | | |
|---+---------+---------+------------+---------+ |
|BW |X |=bw |=bw |=bw | |
| | | |or *<=bw | | |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+------------------+
If an interface supports only a specific bit-rate and format such as
SONET/SDH or Ethernet encoding, BW X must be equal to bw so as to
match bit-rate and its framing.
* In the case of an interface with a lambda encoding and a
transparent to bit-rate and framing, BW X must be equal to or less
than bw.
T. Otani et al. Expires September 2007 [Page 6]
draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-cspf-constraints-05.txt March 2007
Table 2.2: The Case of End-Point(Ingress/Egress) Link Attributes
with Lambda Encoding
+-------------+---------+------------+---------+------------------+
|LSP attribute|Ingress |Transit |Egress |Remarks |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+------------------+
| | |LSC | |LSC | |
| | +---------+ +---------+ |
|SC |LSC |TDM |LSC |TDM | |
| | +---------+ +---------+ |
| | |L2SC | |L2SC | |
| | +---------+ +---------+ |
| | |PSC | |PSC | |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+ |
| |lambda | |lambda | |[RFC4202] |
| +---------+ +------------+ |section 3.7, 3.10 |
|Enc|SONET/SDH| |SONET/SDH | |Specified in G.691|
| | | |or lambda | | |
| +---------+lambda +------------+lambda | |
| |Ethernet | |Ethernet | |Specified in IEEE |
| | | |or lambda | | |
| +---------+ +------------+ | |
| |OTN | |OTN | |Specified in G.709|
| | | |or lambda | | |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+ |
|BW |X |<=bw |=bw |<=bw | |
| | | |or *<=bw | | |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+------------------+
If an interface supports only a specific bit-rate and format such as
SONET/SDH or Ethernet encoding, BW X must be equal to bw so as to
match bit-rate and its framing.
* In the case of an interface with a lambda encoding and a
transparent to bit-rate and framing, BW X must be equal to or less
than bw.
T. Otani et al. Expires September 2007 [Page 7]
draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-cspf-constraints-05.txt March 2007
Table 2.3: The Case of One End-Point (Ingress/Egress) Link
Attribute with Lambda Encoding
+-------------+---------+------------+---------+------------------+
|LSP attribute|Ingress |Transit |Egress |Remarks |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+------------------+
| | |LSC | |LSC | |
| | +---------+ +---------+ |
|SC |LSC |TDM |LSC |TDM | |
| | +---------+ +---------+ |
| | |L2SC | |L2SC | |
| | +---------+ +---------+ |
| | |PSC | |PSC | |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+[RFC4202] |
| |SONET/SDH| |SONET/SDH |SONET/SDH|section 3.6, 3.9 |
| | | |or lambda | |Specified in G.691|
| +---------+ +------------+---------+ |
|Enc|Ethernet |lambda |Ethernet |Ethernet |Specified in IEEE |
| | | |or lambda | | |
| +---------+ +------------+---------+ |
| |OTN | |OTN |OTN |Specified in G.709|
| | | |or lambda | | |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+ |
|BW |X |<=bw |=bw |=bw | |
| | | |or *<=bw | | |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+------------------+
The case of ingress link with the specific encoding and egress link
with lambda encoding also follows the same manner.
If an interface supports only a specific bit-rate and format such as
SONET/SDH or Ethernet encoding, BW X must be equal to bw so as to
match bit-rate and its framing.
* In the case of an interface with a lambda encoding and a
transparent to bit-rate and framing, BW X must be equal to or less
than bw.
T. Otani et al. Expires September 2007 [Page 8]
draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-cspf-constraints-05.txt March 2007
3.3. Fiber Switch Capable (FSC)
Table 3.1: The Case of End-Point(Ingress/Egress) Link Attributes
Without Lambda or Fiber Encoding
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+------------------+
|LSP attribute|Ingress |Transit |Egress |Remarks |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+------------------+
| | |FSC | |FSC | |
| | +---------+ +---------+ |
| | |LSC | |LSC | |
| | +---------+ +---------+ |
|SC |FSC |TDM |FSC |TDM | |
| | +---------+ +---------+ |
| | |L2SC | |L2SC | |
| | +---------+ +---------+ |
| | |PSC | |PSC | |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+[RFC4202] |
|Enc|SONET/SDH|SONET/SDH|SONET/SDH |SONET/SDH|section 3.6, 3.9 |
| | | |or lambda | |Specified in G.691|
| | | |or fiber | | |
| +---------+---------+------------+---------+ |
| |Ethernet |Ethernet |Ethernet |Ethernet |Specified in IEEE |
| | | |or lambda | | |
| | | |or fiber | | |
| +---------+---------+------------+---------+ |
| |OTN |OTN |OTN |OTN |Specified in G.709|
| | | |or lambda | | |
| | | |or fiber | | |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+ |
|BW |X |=bw |=bw |=bw | |
| | | |or *<=bw | | |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+------------------+
If an interface supports only a specific bit-rate and format such as
SONET/SDH or Ethernet encoding, BW X must be equal to bw so as to
match bit-rate and its framing.
* In the case of an interface with a lambda or fiber encoding and a
transparent to bit-rate and framing, BW X must be equal to or less
than bw.
T. Otani et al. Expires September 2007 [Page 9]
draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-cspf-constraints-05.txt March 2007
Table 3.2: The Case of End-Point(Ingress/Egress) Link Attributes with
Lambda or Fiber Encoding
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+------------------+
|LSP attribute|Ingress |Transit |Egress |Remarks |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+------------------+
| | |FSC | |FSC | |
| | +---------+ +---------+ |
| | |LSC | |LSC | |
| | +---------+ +---------+ |
|SC |FSC |TDM |FSC |TDM | |
| | +---------+ +---------+ |
| | |L2SC | |L2SC | |
| | +---------+ +---------+ |
| | |PSC | |PSC | |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+[RFC4202] |
| |fiber |fiber |fiber |fiber |section 3.8 |
| +---------+---------+------------+---------+ |
|Enc|lambda | |lambda | |section 3.7, 3.10 |
| | | |or fiber | | |
| +---------+ +------------+ |section 3.6, 3.9 |
| |SONET/SDH| |SONET/SDH | |Specified in G.691|
| | | |or lambda | | |
| | |lambda |or fiber |lambda | |
| +---------+or fiber +------------+or fiber | |
| |Ethernet | |Ethernet | |Specified in IEEE |
| | | |or lambda | | |
| | | |or fiber | | |
| +---------+ +------------+ | |
| |OTN | |OTN | |Specified in G.709|
| | | |or lambda | | |
| | | |or fiber | | |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+ |
|BW |X |<=bw |=bw |<=bw | |
| | | |or *<=bw | | |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+------------------+
If an interface supports only a specific bit-rate and format such as
SONET/SDH or Ethernet encoding, BW X must be equal to bw so as to
match bit-rate and its framing.
* In the case of an interface with a lambda or fiber encoding and a
transparent to bit-rate and framing, BW X must be equal to or less
than bw.
T. Otani et al. Expires September 2007 [Page 10]
draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-cspf-constraints-05.txt March 2007
Table 3.3: The Case of One End-Point (Ingress/Egress) Link Attribute
with Lambda or Fiber Encoding
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+------------------+
|LSP attribute|Ingress |Transit |Egress |Remarks |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+------------------+
| | |FSC | |FSC | |
| | +---------+ +---------+ |
| | |LSC | |LSC | |
| | +---------+ +---------+ |
|SC |FSC |TDM |FSC |TDM | |
| | +---------+ +---------+ |
| | |L2SC | |L2SC | |
| | +---------+ +---------+ |
| | |PSC | |PSC | |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+[RFC4202] |
|Enc|SONET/SDH| |SONET/SDH |SONET/SDH|section 3.6, 3.9 |
| | | |or lambda | |Specified in G.691|
| | | |or fiber | | |
| +---------+ +------------+---------+ |
| |Ethernet |lambda |Ethernet |Ethernet |Specified in IEEE |
| | |or fiber |or lambda | | |
| | | |or fiber | | |
| +---------+ +------------+---------+ |
| |OTN | |OTN |OTN |Specified in G.709|
| | | |or lambda | | |
| | | |or fiber | | |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+ |
|BW |X |<=bw |=bw |=bw | |
| | | |or *<=bw | | |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+------------------+
The case of ingress link with the specific encoding and egress link
with lambda encoding also follows as the same manner.
If an interface supports only a specific bit-rate and format such as
SONET/SDH or Ethernet encoding, BW X must be equal to bw so as to
match bit-rate and its framing.
* In the case of an interface with a lambda encoding and a
transparent to bit-rate and framing, BW X must be equal to or less
than bw.
Although the interface with FSC can switch the entire contents to
another interface, this interface should only be used for optical
wavelength or waveband switching.
T. Otani et al. Expires September 2007 [Page 11]
draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-cspf-constraints-05.txt March 2007
3.4. Layer 2 Switch Capable (L2SC)
The guideline for the calculation must be created after the
definition and discussion about L2SW are settled down.
3.5. Packet Switch Capable (PSC)
Table 4: Desired GMPLS Attributes in the case of PSC
+-------------+---------+------------+---------+------------------+
|LSP attribute|Ingress |Transit |Egress |Remarks |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+------------------+
|SC |PSC |PSC |PSC |PSC | |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+ |
|Enc|Packet |Packet |Packet |Packet | |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+ |
|BW |X |<=bw |<=bw |<=bw | |
+---+---------+---------+------------+---------+------------------+
Since the interface with PSC supports only packet-by-packet
switching, BW X must be equal to or less than bw, and must be larger
than the minimum LSP bandwidth.
These GMPLS constraints must be considered for computing paths and
creating GMPLS LSPs.
This document does not discuss domain based multilayer path
computation considerations where specific routing policies, which are
sometimes independent from the underlying domains and sometimes take
the underlying domains' policies into consideration, are required.
4. Security Consideration
Anything that can be done to change the output of a path computation
algorithm can significantly affect the operational stability of a
network, could force traffic to traverse undesirable or costly links,
and could place data into less secure parts of the network.
Therefore, the integrity of the path computation mechanism is very
significant in a GMPLS network.
The path computation algorithm, itself, and the mechanisms for
conveying computed paths to and between the LSRs in the network are
out of scope for this document. But misuse or confusion with respect
of the handling of the attributes described in this document could
leave a network open to various security attacks. In particular, if
there is a known mismatch between the interpretation or handling of
TE attributes within a network this might be exploited by an attacker
to cause disruption or to waste network resources in an integrated
multi-technology network. Therefore, network operators are
RECOMMENDED to use a consistent approach across the whole network.
T. Otani et al. Expires September 2007 [Page 12]
draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-cspf-constraints-05.txt March 2007
5. IANA Considerations
This informational document makes no requests for IANA action.
6. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Adrian Farrel for his review of this document.
7. Intellectual Property Considerations
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.
8. References
8.1 Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4202] Kompella, K., and Rekhter, Y., "Routing Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching",
RFC4202, October 2005.
[RFC4203] Kompella, K., and Rekhter, Y., "OSPF Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching",
RFC4203, October 2005.
T. Otani et al. Expires September 2007 [Page 13]
draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-cspf-constraints-05.txt March 2007
8.2 Informative References
[RFC3477] Kompella, K., and Rekhter, Y., "Signalling Unnumbered
Links in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE)", RFC3477, January 2003.
[RFC3630] Katz, D., et al., "Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to
OSPF Version 2", RFC3630, September 2003.
[RFC3945] Mannie, E., et al., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching Architecture", RFC3945, October, 2004.
Authors' Addresses
Tomohiro Otani
KDDI R&D Laboratories, Inc.
2-1-15 Ohara Fujimino-shi
Saitama, 356-8502 Japan
Phone: +81-49-278-7357
Email: otani@kddilabs.jp
Kenichi Ogaki
KDDI R&D Laboratories, Inc.
2-1-15 Ohara Fujimino-shi
Saitama, 356-8502 Japan
Phone: +81-49-278-7897
Email: ogaki@kddilabs.jp
Arthi Ayyangar
Nuova Systems
2600 San Tomas Expressway
Santa Clara, CA 95051
Email: arthi@nuovasystems.com
Rajiv Papneja
Isocore
12359 Sunrise Valley Drive
Suite 100, Reston, VA 20191 US
Email: rpapneja@isocore.com
Kireeti Kompella
Juniper Networks
1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089 US
Email: kireeti@juniper.net
Daniel King
Aria Networks Ltd.
Email: daniel.king@aria-networks.com
T. Otani et al. Expires September 2007 [Page 14]
draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-cspf-constraints-05.txt March 2007
Document Expiration
This document will be expired in September 2007, unless it is
updated.
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
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, 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 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
T. Otani et al. Expires September 2007 [Page 15]