Network Working Group D. Papadimitriou (Alcatel)
Internet Draft M. Vigoureux (Alcatel)
Expiration Date: April 2007 K. Shiomoto (NTT)
D. Brungard (ATT)
J.L. Le Roux (France Telecom)
October 2006
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Protocol
Extensions for Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks (MLN/MRN)
draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-extensions-03.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 Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
There are requirements for the support of networks ccomprising LSRs
with different data plane switching layers controlled by a single
Generalized Multi Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) control plane
instance, referred to as GMPLS Multi-Layer Networks/Multi-Region
Networks (MLN/MRN). This document defines extensions to GMPLS routing
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires April 2007 [Page 1]
draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-extensions-03.txt Oct. 2006
and signaling protocols so as to support the operation of GMPLS
Multi-Layer/Multi-Region Networks.
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.
In addition the reader is assumed to be familiar with the concepts
developed in [RFC3945], [RFC3471], and [RFC4202] as well as
[RFC4206] and [RFC4201].
1. Introduction
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) [RFC 3945]
extends MPLS to handle multiple switching technologies: packet
switching (PSC), layer-two switching (L2SC), TDM switching (TDM),
wavelength switching (LSC) and fiber switching (FSC). A GMPLS
switching type (PSC, TDM, etc.) describes the ability of a node to
forward data of a particular data plane technology, and uniquely
identifies a control plane region. LSP Regions are defined in
[RFC4206]. A network comprised of multiple switching types (e.g. PSC
and TDM) controlled by a single GMPLS control plane instance is
called a Multi-Region Network (MRN).
A data plane layer is a collection of network resources capable of
terminating and/or switching data traffic of a particular format.
For example, LSC, TDM VC-11 and TDM VC-4-64c represent three
different layers. A network comprising transport nodes with
different data plane switching layers controlled either by a single
GMPLS control plane instance is called a Multi-Layer Network (MLN).
The applicability of GMPLS to multiple switching technologies
provides the unified control management approach for both LSP
provisioning and recovery. Indeed one of the main motivations for
unifying the capabilities and operations GMPLS control plane is the
desire to support multi LSP-region [RFC4206] routing and Traffic
Engineering (TE) capability. For instance, this enables effective
network resource utilization of both the Packet/Layer2 LSP regions
and the Time Division Multiplexing (TDM) or Lambda LSP regions in
high capacity networks.
The rationales for investigating GMPLS controlled multi-layer/multi-
region networks context are detailed in [MRN-REQ]. The corresponding
motivations in terms of the GMPLS protocol suite are summarized here
below:
- The maintenance of multiple instances of the control plane on
devices hosting more than one switching capability not only (and
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires April 2007 [Page 2]
draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-extensions-03.txt Oct. 2006
obviously) increases the complexity of their interactions but also
increases the total amount of processing individual instances would
handle.
- The merge of both data and control plane addressing spaces helps
in avoiding multiple identification for the same object (a link for
instance or more generally any network resource), on the other hand
such aggregation does not impact the separation between the control
and the data plane.
- The collaboration between associated control planes (packet/framed
data planes) and non-associated control planes (SONET/SDH, G.709,
etc.) is facilitated due to the capability of hooking the
associated in-band signaling to the IP terminating interfaces of
the control plane.
- Resource management and policies to be applied at the edges of
such environment is facilitated (less control to management
interactions) and more scalable (through the use of aggregated
information).
- Multi-region/multi-layer traffic engineering is facilitated as TE-
links from distinct regions/layers are stored within the same TE
Database
Detailed requirements for Multi-Layer/Region Networks are spelt out
in [MLN-REQ]. An evaluation of existing GMPLS protocols against
these requirements is discussed in [MLN-EVAL], which identifies
several areas where protocol extensions are required and provides
guidelines for such extensions.
The next sections provide the operational aspects in terms of routing
and signaling for such environments as well as the extensions
required to instrument GMPLS to control such environments. In this
context, this document defines GMPLS routing and signaling extensions
that follow the requirements detailed in [MRN-REQ]. These extensions
are proposed in-line with the analysis of the GMPLS capabilities to
accommodate multiple switching capable networks as evaluated in [MRN-
EVAL].
2. Summary of the Requirements and Evaluation
As identified in [MRN-EVAL] most of MLN/MRN requirements rely on
mechanisms and procedures that are out of the scope of the GMPLS
protocols, and thus do not require any GMPLS protocol extensions.
They rely on local procedures and policies, and on specific TE
mechanisms and algorithms.
Virtual Network Topology (VNT) computation and reconfiguration,
specific TE mechanisms that may for instance rely on PCE based
mechanisms and protocols. These mechanisms are outside the scope of
GMPLS protocols.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires April 2007 [Page 3]
draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-extensions-03.txt Oct. 2006
Four areas for extensions of GMPLS protocols and procedures have been
identified:
- GMPLS routing extension for the advertisement of the
internal adaptation capability of hybrid nodes.
- GMPLS signaling extension for constrained multi-region
signaling (SC inclusion/exclusion)
- GMPLS signaling extension for the setup/deletion of
the virtual TE-links (as well as exact trigger for its actual
provisioning)
- GMPLS routing and signaling extension for graceful TE-link
deletion (covered in [GR-TELINK]).
The first three are addressed in Sections 3, 4 and 5, respectively,
of this document. The fourth is addressed in [GR-TELINK].
3. Interface adaptation capability descriptor (IACD)
In the MRN context, nodes supporting more than one switching
capability on at least one interface are called Hybrid nodes. Hybrid
nodes contain at least two distinct switching elements that are
interconnected by internal links to provide adaptation between the
supported switching capabilities. These internal links have finite
capacities and must be taken into account when computing the path of
a multi-region TE-LSP.
The advertisement of the internal adaptation capability is required
as it provides critical information when performing multi-region path
computation.
3.1 Overview
In an MRN environment, some LSRs could contain, under the control of
a single GMPLS instance, multiple switching capabilities such as PSC
and TDM or PSC and Lambda Switching Capability (LSC).
These nodes, hosting multiple Interface Switching Capabilities
(ISC), just like other nodes (hosting a single Interface Switching
Capability) are required to hold and advertise resource information
on link states and topology. They also may have to consider certain
portions of internal node resources to terminate hierarchical label
switched paths (LSPs), since circuit switch capable units such as
TDMs, LSCs, and FSCs require rigid resources. For example, a node
with PSC+LSC hierarchical switching capability can switch a Lambda
LSP but may not be able to can never terminate the Lambda LSP if
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires April 2007 [Page 4]
draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-extensions-03.txt Oct. 2006
there is no unused adaptation capability between the LSC and the PSC
switching capabilities.
Another example occurs when L2SC (Ethernet) switching can be adapted
in LAPS X.86 and GFP for instance before reaching the TDM switching
matrix. Similar circumstances can occur, if a switching fabric that
supports both PSC and L2SC functionalities is assembled with LSC
interfaces enabling "lambda" encoding. In the switching fabric, some
interfaces can terminate Lambda LSPs and perform frame (or cell)
switching whilst other interfaces can terminate Lambda LSPs and
perform packet switching.
Therefore, within multi-region networks, the advertisement of the
so-called adaptation capability to terminate LSPs (not the interface
capability since the latter can be inferred from the bandwidth
available for each switching capability) provides critical
information to take into account when performing multi-region path
computation. This concept enables a node to discriminate the remote
nodes (and thus allows their selection during path computation) with
respect to their adaptation capability e.g. to terminate LSPs at the
PSC or LSC level.
Hence, we introduce the idea of discriminating the (internal)
adaptation capability from the (interface) switching capability by
considering an interface adaptation capability descriptor.
3.2 Interface Adaptation Capability Descriptor (IACD) Format
The interface switching capability descriptor (IACD) provides the
information for the forwarding/switching) capability only.
The IACD sub-TLV format is as follows. In IS-IS, this is a sub-TLV of
the Extended IS Reachability TLV (see [RFC 3784]) with type TBD. In
OSPF, it is defined as a sub-TLV of the Link TLV (see [RFC 3630]),
with type TBD.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Switching Cap | Encoding | Switching Cap | Encoding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 3 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires April 2007 [Page 5]
draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-extensions-03.txt Oct. 2006
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 5 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 6 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 7 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Adaptation Capability-specific information |
| (variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
- first Switching Capability (SC) field (byte 1): lower switching
capability (as defined for the existing ISC sub-TLV)
- first Encoding field (byte 2): as defined for the existing ISC
sub-TLV
- second SC value (byte 3): upper switching capability (new)
- second encoding value (byte 4): set to the encoding of the
available adaptation pool and to 0xFF when the corresponding SC
value has no access to the wire (i.e. there is no ISC sub-TLV for
this upper switching capability)
Multiple sub-TLVs may be present within a given TE Link TLV /
extended IS reachability TLV and the bandwidth simply provides an
indication of resources still available to perform insertion/
extraction for a given adaptation (pool concept).
4. Multi-Region Signaling
Section 8.2 of [RFC4206] specifies that when a region boundary node
receives a Path message, the node determines whether it is at the
edge of an LSP region with respect to the ERO carried in the
message. If the node is at the edge of a region, it must then
determine the other edge of the region with respect to the ERO,
using the IGP database. The node then extracts from the ERO the
subsequence of hops from itself to the other end of the region.
The node then compares the subsequence of hops with all existing FA-
LSPs originated by the node:
- if a match is found, that FA-LSP has enough unreserved bandwidth
for the LSP being signaled, and the PID of the FA-LSP is
compatible with the PID of the LSP being signaled, the node uses
that FA-LSP as follows. The Path message for the original LSP is
sent to the egress of the FA-LSP. The PHOP in the message is the
address of the node at the head-end of the FA-LSP. Before sending
the Path message, the ERO in that message is adjusted by removing
the subsequence of the ERO that lies in the FA-LSP, and replacing
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires April 2007 [Page 6]
draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-extensions-03.txt Oct. 2006
it with just the end point of the FA-LSP.
- if no existing FA-LSP is found, the node sets up a new FA-LSP.
That is, it initiates a new LSP setup just for the FA-LSP.
Applying this procedure, in a MRN environment MAY lead to setup one-
hop FA-LSPs between each node. Therefore, considering that the path
computation is able to take into account richness of information with
regard to the SC available on given nodes belonging to the path, it
is consistent to provide enough signaling information to indicate the
SC to be used and on over which link. Particularly, in case a TE
link has multiple SC advertised as part of its ISCD sub-TLVs, an ERO
does not allow selecting a particular SC.
Limiting modifications to existing RSVP-TE procedures [RFC3473] and
referenced, this document defines a new Switching Capability sub-
object of the eXclude Route Object [XRO]. This sub-object enables
(when desired) the explicit identification of (at least one)
switching capability to be excluded from the resource selection
process described here above.
Including this sub-object as part of the XRO that explicitly
indicates which SCs have to be excluded (before initiating the
procedure described here above) solves the ambiguous choice among SCs
that are potentially used along a given path and give the possibility
to optimize resource usage on a multi-region basis. Note that
implicit SC inclusion is easily supported by explicitly excluding
other SCs (e.g. to include LSC, it is required to exclude PSC, L2SC,
TDM and FSC).
Note: usage of the EXRS is under investigation.
4.1 SC Subobject Encoding
The contents of an EXCLUDE_ROUTE object defined in [XRO] are a
series of variable-length data items called subobjects. This
document defines the SC subobject of the XRO (Type TBD), its
encoding and processing.
Subobject Type TBD: Switching Capability
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type | Length | Attribute | Switching Cap |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
L
0 indicates that the attribute specified MUST be excluded
1 indicates that the attribute specified SHOULD be avoided
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires April 2007 [Page 7]
draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-extensions-03.txt Oct. 2006
Attribute
0 reserved value
1 indicates that the specified SC should be excluded or
avoided with respect to the preceding numbered (Type 1 or
Type 2) or unnumbered interface (Type) subobject
This sub-object must follow the set of numbered or unnumbered
interface sub-objects to which this sub-object refers. In case, of
loose hop ERO subobject, this sub-object must precede the loose-hop
sub-object identifying the tail-end node/interface of the traversed
region(s).
Furthermore, it is expected, when label sub-object are following
numbered or unnumbered interface sub-objects, that the label value is
compliant with the SC capability to be explicitly excluded.
5. Virtual TE link
Two techniques can be used for the setup operation and maintenance of
Virtual TE links. The corresponding GMPLS protocols extensions are
described in this section.
5.1 Edge-to-edge Association
This approach that does not require state maintenance on transit LSRs
rely on extensions to the GMPLS RSVP-TE Call procedure ([GMPLS-
CALL]).
This technique consists of exchanging identification and TE
attributes information directly between TE link end points. These TE
link end-points correspond to the LSP head and tail-end points of of
the LSPs that will be established. The end-points MUST belong to the
same region through the establishment of a call between terminating
LSRs.
Once the call is established the resulting association populates the
local TEDB and the resulting TE link is advertized as any other TE
link. The latter can then be used to attract traffic. Once an upper
layer/lower region LSP makes use of this TE link. A set of one or
more LSPs must be initially established before the FA LSP can be used
for nesting the incoming LSP.
In order to distinguish usage of such call from a classical call (as
defined e.g. in [RFC4139]), a CALL ATTRIBUTE object is introduced.
5.1.1 CALL_ATTRIBUTES Object
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires April 2007 [Page 8]
draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-extensions-03.txt Oct. 2006
The CALL_ATTRIBUTES object is used to signal attributes required in
support of a call, or to indicate the nature or use of a call. It is
built on the LSP-ATTRIBUTES object defined in [RFC4420].
The CALL_ATTRIBUTES object class is 201 of the form 11bbbbbb. This
C-Num value (see [RFC2205], Section 3.10) ensures that LSRs that do
not recognize the object pass it on transparently.
One C-Type is defined, C-Type = 1 for CALL Attributes. This object is
optional and may be placed on Notify messages to convey additional
information about the desired attributes of the call.
5.1.2 Processing
Specifically, if an egress (or intermediate) LSR does not support the
object, it forwards it unexamined and unchanged. This facilitates
the exchange of attributes across legacy networks that do not support
this new object.
The CALL_ATTRIBUTES object may be used to report call operational
state on a Notify message.
CALL_ATTRIBUTES class = 201, C-Type = 1
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Attributes TLVs //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Attributes TLVs are encoded as described in Section 3.
5.1.3 Attributes TLVs
Attributes carried by the CALL_ATTRIBUTE object are encoded within
TLVs. One or more TLVs may be present in each object.
There are no ordering rules for TLVs, and no interpretation should be
placed on the order in which TLVs are received.
Each TLV is encoded as follows.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires April 2007 [Page 9]
draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-extensions-03.txt Oct. 2006
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Value //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type
The identifier of the TLV.
Length
The length of the Value field in bytes. Thus, if no Value
field is present the Length field contains the value zero.
Each Value field must be zero padded at the end to take it up
to a four byte boundary -- the padding is not included in the
length so that a one byte value would be encoded in an eight
byte TLV with Length field set to one.
Value
The data for the TLV padded as described above.
TLV Type 1 indicates the Attributes Flags TLV. Other TLV types may be
defined in the future with type values assigned by IANA (see Section
11.2). The Attributes Flags TLV may be present in a CALL_ATTRIBUTES
object.
The Attribute Flags TLV value field is an array of units of 32 flags
numbered from the most significant bit as bit zero. The Length field
for this TLV is therefore always a multiple of 4 bytes, regardless of
the number of bits carried and no padding is required.
Unassigned bits are considered as reserved and MUST be set to zero on
transmission by the originator of the object. Bits not contained in
the TLV MUST be assumed to be set to zero. If the TLV is absent
either because it is not contained in the CALL_ATTRIBUTES object or
because those objects are themselves absent, all processing MUST be
performed as though the bits were present and set to zero. That is to
say, assigned bits that are not present either because the TLV is
deliberately foreshortened or because the TLV is not included MUST be
treated as though they are present and are set to zero.
5.1.4 Call inheritance Flag
This document introduces a specific flag (MSB position bit 0) of the
Attributes Flags TLV, to indicate that the association initiated
between the end-points belonging to as call is to be mapped into a TE
link advertisement.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires April 2007 [Page 10]
draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-extensions-03.txt Oct. 2006
The notify message is defined as per [GMPLS-CALL]. Additionally, the
notify message must carry an LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID Object, that
allows identifying unnumbered FA-LSPs ([RFC3477], [RFC4206],
[RFC4206-bis]) and numbered FA-LSPs ([RFC4206], [RFC4206-bis]).
5.2. Soft-FA approach
The Soft FA approach consists of setting up the FA LSP at the control
plane level without actually committing resources in the data plane.
This means that the corresponding LSP exists only in the control
plane domain.
Once such FA is established the corresponding TE link can be
advertized following the procedures described in [RFC 4206].
5.2.1 LSP_REQUIRED ATTRIBUTES object
The LSP ATTRIBUTES object is defined in [RFC4420]. The present
document defines a new flag in the existing Attributes Flags TLV
numbered as Type 1. The latter is defined as the pre-planned LSP
Flag.
The position of this flag is TBD in accordance with IANA assignment.
This flag is defined to be part of the LSP_REQUIRED ATTRIBUTE object
and follows processing of [RFC4420] for that object.
That is, LSRs that do not recognize the object reject the LSP setup
effectively saying that they do not support the attributes requested.
Indeed, the newly defined attribute requires examination at all
transit LSRs.
The pre-planned LSP Flag can take one of the following values:
o) When set to 0 this means that the LSP should be fully provisioned.
Absence of this flag (hence corresponding TLV) is therefore compliant
with the signaling message processing per [RFC3473])
o) When set to 1 this means that the LSP should be provisioned in the
control plane only.
If an LSP is established with the pre-planned Flag set to 1, no
resources are committed at the data plane level. The operation of
committing data plane resources occurs by re-signaling the same LSP
with the pre-planned Flag set to 0. It is RECOMMENDED that no other
modifications are made to other RSVP objects during this operation.
That is each intermediate node, processing a Flag transiting from 1
to 0 shall only be concerned with the commitment of data plane
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires April 2007 [Page 11]
draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-extensions-03.txt Oct. 2006
resources and no other modification of the LSP properties and/or
attributes.
If an LSP is established with the pre-planned Flag set to 0, it MAY
be re-signaled by setting the Flag to 1.
5.2.2 Path Provisioned LSPs
There is a difference in between an LSP that is established with 0
bandwidth (path provisioning) and an LSP that is established with a
certain bandwidth value not committed at the data plane level (i.e.
pre-planned LSP).
However, the former is currently not possible using the GMPLS
protocol suite (following technology specific SENDER_TSPEC/FLOWSPEC
definition). Indeed, Traffic Parameters such as those defined in [RFC
4606] do not support setup of 0 bandwidth LSPs.
Mechanisms for provisioning (pre-planned or not) LSP with 0 bandwidth
will be described in next release of this document.
6. Backward compatibility
TBD
7. Security Considerations
In its current version, this memo does not introduce new security
consideration from the ones already detailed in the GMPLS protocol
suite.
8. References
8.1 Normative References
[GMPLS-CALL]D.Papadimitriou and A.Farrel, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in support of Calls," Work
in progress, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-call-01.txt,
August 2006.
[L2SC-LSP] D.Papadimitriou, et al., "Generalized MPLS Signaling for
Layer-2 Label Switched Paths (LSP)", Work in Progress,
draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-gmpls-l2sc-lsp-03.txt.
[MRN-EVAL] J.-L. Leroux et al., "Evaluation of existing GMPLS
Protocols against Multi Region and Multi Layer Networks
(MRN/MLN)", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-
eval-02.txt.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires April 2007 [Page 12]
draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-extensions-03.txt Oct. 2006
[MRN-REQ] K.Shiomoto et al., "Requirements for GMPLS-based multi-
region and multi-layer networks (MRN/MLN)", Work in
Progress, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-reqs-02.txt.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to indicate
requirements levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2370] R.Coltun, "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 2370, July
1998.
[RFC3471] L.Berger et al., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) - Signaling Functional Description",
RFC 3471, January 2003.
[RFC3630] D.Katz et al., "Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to
OSPF Version 2," RFC 3630, September 2003.
[RFC3667] Bradner, S., "IETF Rights in Contributions", BCP 78,
RFC 3667, February 2004.
[RFC3668] Bradner, S., Ed., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3668, February 2004.
[RFC4201] K.Kompella, et al., "Link Bundling in MPLS Traffic
Engineering", RFC 4201, October 2005.
[RFC4202] K.Kompella (Editor), Y. Rekhter (Editor) et al. "Routing
Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS", RFC 4202,
October 2005.
[RFC4206] K.Kompella and Y.Rekhter, "LSP Hierarchy with Generalized
MPLS TE", RFC 4206, October 2005.
[RFC4206-bis] Shimoto et al. "Procedures for Dynamically Signaled
Hierarchical Label Switched Paths ", draft-ietf-ccamp-
lsp-hierarchy-bis, work in progress.
[RFC4420] A.Farrel et al., "Encoding of Attributes for
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path
(LSP) Establishment Using Resource ReserVation Protocol-
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 4420, February 2006.
[RFC4428] D.Papadimitriou et al. "Analysis of Generalized Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)-based Recovery
Mechanisms (including Protection and Restoration)", RFC
4428, March 2006.
[XRO] C.Y.Lee et al. "Exclude Routes - Extension to RSVP-TE,"
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires April 2007 [Page 13]
draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-extensions-03.txt Oct. 2006
Work in progress, draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-exclude-
route-05.txt, August 2005.
8.2 Informative References
[MAMLTE] K.Shiomoto et al., "Multi-area multi-layer traffic
engineering using hierarchical LSPs in GMPLS networks",
Work in Progress, draft-shiomoto-multiarea-te-01.txt.
[MLRT] W.Imajuku et al., "Multilayer routing using multilayer
switch capable LSRs", Work in Progress, draft-imajuku-ml-
routing-02.txt.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Mr. Wataru Imajuku for the
discussions on adaptation between regions [MLRT].
Author's Addresses
Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel)
Francis Wellensplein 1,
B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
Phone : +32 3 240 8491
E-mail: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be
Martin Vigoureux (Alcatel)
Route de Nozay,
91461 Marcoussis cedex, France
Phone: +33 (0)1 69 63 18 52
E-mail: martin.vigoureux@alcatel.fr
Kohei Shiomoto (NTT Network Service Systems Laboratories)
3-9-11 Midori-cho
Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180-8585, Japan
Phone: +81 422 59 4402
E-mail: shiomoto.kohei@lab.ntt.co.jp
Deborah Brungard (AT&T)
Rm. D1-3C22 - 200 S. Laurel Ave.
Middletown, NJ 07748, USA
Phone: +1 732 420 1573
E-mail: dbrungard@att.com
Jean-Louis Le Roux (FTRD/DAC/LAN)
Avenue Pierre Marzin
22300 Lannion, France
Phone: +33 (0)2 96 05 30 20
E-mail:jean-louis.leroux@rd.francetelecom.com
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires April 2007 [Page 14]
draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-extensions-03.txt Oct. 2006
Contributors
Eiji Oki (NTT Network Service Systems Laboratories)
3-9-11 Midori-cho
Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180-8585, Japan
Phone : +81 422 59 3441
Email: oki.eiji@lab.ntt.co.jp
Ichiro Inoue(NTT Network Service Systems Laboratories)
3-9-11 Midori-cho
Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180-8585, Japan
Phone : +81 422 59 6076
Email: ichiro.inoue@lab.ntt.co.jp
Emmanuel Dotaro (Alcatel)
Route de Nozay,
91461 Marcoussis cedex, France
Phone : +33 1 6963 4723
Email: emmanuel.dotaro@alcatel.fr
Gert Grammel (Alcatel)
Lorenzstrasse, 10
70435 Stuttgart, Germany
Email: gert.grammel@alcatel.de
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires April 2007 [Page 15]
draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-extensions-03.txt Oct. 2006
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.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires April 2007 [Page 16]