Network Working Group Kohei Shiomoto Internet Draft (NTT) draft-shiomoto-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-reqs-00.txt Dimitri Papadimitriou Expires: April 2005 (Alcatel) Jean-Louis Le Roux (France Telecom) Martin Vigoureux (Alcatel) Deborah Brungard (AT&T) October 2004 Requirements for GMPLS-based multi-region and multi-layer networks draft-shiomoto-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-reqs-00.txt Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions of section 3 of RFC 3667. 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 become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668. 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 (2004). All Rights Reserved. Abstract Most of the initial efforts on Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) have been related to environments hosting devices with a single switching capability, that is, one data plane switching layer. The complexity raised by the control of such data planes is similar to that seen in classical IP/MPLS networks. Shiomoto et al Expires April 2005 1 Requirements for GMPLS-based multi-region and multi-layer networks October 2004 GMPLS can provide a comprehensive framework for the control of a network consisting of network elements based on different switching technologies, which we call a multi-region network (MRN). GMPLS can also facilitate the control of layered networks where connections in a higher layer network are facilitated by a lower layer network. This draft defines a framework for GMPLS-based multi-region and multi- layer networks, and lists a set of functional requirements. 1. Introduction Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) extends MPLS to handle multiple switching technologies: packet switching, layer-two switching, TDM switching, wavelength switching, and fiber switching (see [GMPLS-ARCH]). The Interface Switching Capability concept is introduced for those switching technologies and is designated as follows: PSC (packet switch capable), L2SC (Layer-2 switch capable), TDM (Time Division Multiplex capable), LSC (lambda switch capable), and FSC (fiber switch capable). Service providers operate networks consisting of network elements with different switching capabilities such as routers, layer-two switches, TDM cross-connects, optical cross-connects, and fiber switches. The networks consist of several technology domains, each of which uses the same switching capability. The term region is used to distinguish these technology domains [HIER]. Since GMPLS provides a comprehensive framework for the control of different switching technologies, the service providerÝs network can be controlled in a unified framework and therefore rapid service provisioning and efficient network usage are achievable. A network consisting of network elements based on different switching technologies controlled by a unified GMPLS control plane is referred to as a multi-region network (MRN) in this document. In GMPLS-based multi-region networks, TE-links with different switching capabilities are consolidated into a single traffic engineering database (TED). Since TE-links with different switching capabilities are consolidated into a single TED, a path across multiple regions can be computed using the TED. Thus optimization of network resource across the multiple regions can be sought. Optimization can take place in across multiple regions. Consider, for example, a network consisting of IP routers and TDM cross-connects. Assume that a packet-level LSP is routed between source and destination IP routers, and that the LSP can be routed across the PSC-region (i.e., utilizing only resources of the IP level topology). If the performance objective for the LSP is not satisfied, new TE- links may be created between the IP routers across the TDM-region and the LSP can be routed over those links. Further, even if the LSP can be successfully established across PSC-region, TE-links across the TDM-region between the IP routers may be established and used if Shiomoto et al Expires April 2005 2 Requirements for GMPLS-based multi-region and multi-layer networks October 2004 doing so leaves more network resource available (e.g., link bandwidth, and adaptation port between regions) across the multiple regions. A service providerÝs network may be divided into different network layers. The customerÝs network is considered the highest layer network, and interfaces to the highest layer of the service providerÝs network. Connectivity across the highest layer of the service providerÝs network may be provided with support from networks of successively lower layers. Network layers are commonly arranged according to the switching capabilities of the devices in the networks so that, for example, there may be layer one networks (TDM, LSC and FSC) supporting layer two networks (L2SC) supporting layer three networks (IP and MPLS). The support relationship is, however, a client-server relationship where the lower layer provides a service for the higher layer using the TE links of the lower layer, and so the layering relationship is actually administrative rather than dependent on the switching capabilities of the networks. A åmulti-layerÝ network is, therefore, the general case of a multi- region network which must embrace all of the requirements for regions of different switching capabilities, but must also support the arbitrary layering of networks. More generally, such multi-layer services can be provided by the combination of GMPLS based multi-region networks and non-GMPLS based networks such as legacy IP and MPLS/IP networks. We call this a (general) multi-layer service network. This document describes the requirements for the multi-region network and the multi-layer service network. The rest of this document is organized as follows. In Section 3, the key concepts for the Generalized MPLS-based multi-region and multi-layer service networks are described. In Section 4, the functional requirements are listed. There is no intention to specify solution specific elements in this document. The applicability of existing GMPLS protocol to MRN, and any protocol extensions, will be addressed in separate documents. 2. 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]. 3. Key mechanisms in GMPLS-based multi-region and multi-layer networks 3.1 The Multi-region network (MRN) Example of MRN network, which consists of PSC, TDM and LSC. is illustrated in Figure 1. The concept of region is by nature hierarchical. PSC, TDM, and LSC are defined from the upper to the lower regions in Figure 1. Network elements with different switching technologies in the MRN are controlled by a unified GMPLS control Shiomoto et al Expires April 2005 3 Requirements for GMPLS-based multi-region and multi-layer networks October 2004 plane. When a LSP is crossing a region boundary from the upper to the lower regions, the LSP is be nested in a lower-region FA. .................................................. : .................................. : : : ................. : : : : : : : : : PSC : TDM : LSC : : : : +--+ : +--+ : +--+ +--+ : +--+ : +--+ : : |P1|-----|T1|-----|L1|---|L2|-----|T2|----|P2| : : +--+ : +--+ : +--+ +--+ : +--+ : +--+ : : : ................. : : : .................................. : .................................................. Figure 1: Example of .ulti-region network 3.2 Interface switching capability The Interface Switching Capability (ISC) concept is introduced in GMPLS to support various kinds of switching technology in a unified way. An ISC refers to the ability of a data switch to forward data of a particular type. PSC, L2SC, TDM, LSC, and FSC are defined. Each end of the link in a GMPLS network is associated with at least one switching capability. For example, PSC is associated with an interface which can delineate IP/MPLS packets (e.g., a routerÝs interface) while LSC is associated with an interface which can switch individual wavelengths multiplexed in a fiber link (e.g., an OXCÝs interface). Every link in the TE database has switching capabilities at both ends. An interface may have multiple interface switching capabilities. A router has only interfaces with a single switching capability (PSC) while a hybrid node has a mixture of interfaces with single and multiple switching capabilities. 3.3 Horizontal and vertical integration Two types of network elements are defined in the multi-region network: plain nodes and hybrid nodes. A plain node has only a single switching capability configured on its any one of its interfaces but may have interfaces with different switching capabilities. On the other hand, the hybrid node has interfaces with single and multiple switching capabilities, and interfaces of the same hybrid node may have different switching capabilities. 3.3.1 Plain node model The MRN network can consist of just plain nodes. PSC, L2SC, TDM, LSC, and FSC plain nodes are deployed in the MRN network (See Figure 2). Note that the node, which has links of various different switching capabilities, is still a plain node as long as the end point of each link is associated with a single switching capability. For example, the node TL2 in Figure 2 is a plain node, which has links associated Shiomoto et al Expires April 2005 4 Requirements for GMPLS-based multi-region and multi-layer networks October 2004 with TDM and links associated with LSC. At the region boundary, the interface switching capabilities of the ends of the link are different. When an LSP crosses the boundary from the upper to the lower regions, it is nested in a lower-region FA or can be converted to a lower-region LSP. ..................................................................... : ..................................................... : : : .................................... : : : : : ................... : : : : PSC : TDM : LSC : FSC : : : : : +--+ : +--+ : +--+ : +--+ +--+ : +--+ : +--+ : +--+ : : |P1|_____|T1|_____|L1|_____|F1|____|F3| ____|L3|_____|T3|____|P3| : : +--+ : +--+ : +--+ : +--+ +--+ : +--+ : +--+ : +--+ : : | : | : | : | | : | : | : | : : | : | : | : | | : | : | : | : : +--+ : +-----------+ : +--+ +--+ : +--+ : +--+ : +--+ : : |P2|_____| TL2 |_____|F2|____|F4| ____|L4|_____|T4|____|P4| : : +--+ : +-----------+ : +--+ +--+ : +--+ : +--+: +--+ : : : : ................... : : ; : : .................................... : : : ................................................... : ..................................................................... Figure 2: Plain node MRN model. 3.3.2 Hybrid node interface capabilities Figure 3 shows an example of a hybrid node. The hybrid node has two switching elements, which have, for instance, interface switching capabilities PSC and TDM. It has two external interfaces (Link1 and Link2), which are directly connected to the switching element of PSC. The two switching elements are interconnected via an internal interface, which is not disclosed outside the network element. The internal interface is used to facilitate adaptation between different switching capabilities: PSC and TDM. By cross-connecting port #a and port #b in the TDM switching element, Link 1 is made capable of PSC switching and can no longer switch TDM. Network element ............................. : -------- : : | PSC | : : +--<->---| | : : | -------- : TDM : | ---------- : +PSC : +--<->--|#a TDM | : Link1 ------------<->--|#b | : Link2 ------------<->--|#c | : : ---------- : :............................ Figure 3. Hybrid node. Shiomoto et al Expires April 2005 5 Requirements for GMPLS-based multi-region and multi-layer networks October 2004 3.3.3 Horizontal and vertical integration Horizontal interaction is defined as the protocol exchange between network elements that support a single common switching technology (i.e. switching capability). For instance, the control plane interactions between two LSC network elements is an example of horizontal interaction. Normal GMPLS protocol operations handle horizontal interactions, but of particular interest is the case where the interaction takes place across a domain boundary such as between two routing areas that support the same switching technology. Vertical interaction is defined as the collaborative mechanisms within a network element that is capable of supporting more than one switching technology. This enables a device to connect together two distinct switching domains (for example, a PSC domain and a LSC domain). Such a concept is useful in order to construct a framework that facilitates efficient network resource usage and rapid service provisioning in carrier's networks that are based on multiple switching technologies. Networks where separate domains of switching capability exist and are controllable through vertical interaction are termed "multi-layer" networks. Whereas the multi-region concept allows for the operation of one network switching type over another switching type (for example, the use of a PSC Forwarding Adjacency over an LSC network), the multi- layer concept offers a greater degree of control and interworking including (but not limited too): - the dynamic establishment of FAs - the provisioning of end-to-end, multi-technology LSPs using data plane adaptation - the dynamic establishment of multi-technology stitched LSPs using data plane adaptation. 3.4 Triggered signaling When a LSP crosses the boundary from an upper to a lower region, it may be nested in or stitched to a lower-region LSP. If such an LSP does not exist, the LSP may be established dynamically. Such a mechanism is referred to as "triggered signaling". 3.5 Forwarding adjacency (FA) Once an LSP across a lower layer is created, it can be advertised as a TE-link called a Forwarding Adjacency (FA), allowing other nodes to use the LAP as a TE links for their path computation [HIER]. The FA is a useful and powerful tool for improving the scalability of GMPLS Traffic Engineering (TE) capable networks. Shiomoto et al Expires April 2005 6 Requirements for GMPLS-based multi-region and multi-layer networks October 2004 The aggregation of TE Label Switched Paths (TE-LSPs) enables the creation of a vertical (nested) TE-LSP Hierarchy. A set of FAs across or within a lower region can be used by a higher region as part of the path computation process, and higher region LSPs may be carried across the FAs (just as they are carried across any TE link). This process of requires either the nesting of LSPs through a hierarchical process [HIER] or stitching at the region boundary. In the MRN, since more than one higher region paths computation and modification can occur, FAs in the various regions are treated in a simple and efficient way. A MRN traffic engineering database (TED) is a set of FA information from multiple different regions. An FAÝs region is identified by the interface switching capability attached to the link state advertisement associated with the FA [GMPLS-ROUTING]. 3.6 Virtual network topology (VNT) A set of lower-region FAs provides a set of information for efficient path handling in the upper-region of the MRN, or provides a virtual network topology to the upper-region. For instance, a set of FAs, each of which is instantiated by an LSC LSP, provides a virtual network topology to the PSC region, assuming that the PSC region is connected to the LSC region. The virtual network topology is configured by setting up or tearing down the LSC LSPs. By using GMPLS signaling and routing protocols, the virtual network topology can be easily adapted to traffic demands. By reconfiguring the virtual network topology according to traffic demand between source and destination node pairs, network performance factors, such as maximum link utilization and residual capacity of the network, can be optimized [MAMLTE]. Reconfiguration is performed by computing the new VNT from the traffic demand matrix and optionally from the current VNT. Exact details are outside the scope of this document. However, this method MAY be tailored according to the service provider's policy regarding network performance and quality of service (delay, loss/disruption, utilization, residual capacity, reliability). 4. Requirements 4.1. Requirements for multi-region TE 4.1.1 Scalability The MRN relies on a unified routing model. The Traffic Engineering Database in each LSR will be populated with TE-links from all regions. This may lead to a huge amount of information that has to be flooded and stored within the network. Furthermore, path computation delays, which may be of huge importance during restoration, will depend on the size of the TE Database. Shiomoto et al Expires April 2005 7 Requirements for GMPLS-based multi-region and multi-layer networks October 2004 Thus MRN routing mechanisms MUST be designed to scale well with an increase of any of the following: - Number of nodes - Number of TE-links (including FA-LSP) - Number of LSPs - Number of regions 4.1.2 FA link resource utilization It MUST be possible to utilize network resources efficiently. Particularly, resource usage in each region SHOULD be optimized as a whole (i.e. across all regions), in a coordinated manner. The number of lower-region FA-LSPs carrying upper-region LSPs SHOULD be minimized. Redundant lower-region FA-LSPs SHOULD be avoided (except for protection purpose). 4.1.2.1 FA release and setup Statistical multiplexing can only be employed in PSC and L2SC regions. The use of a PSC or L2SC FA-LSP may or may not consume the full bandwidth of the FA-LSP. On the other hand, a TDM, LSC, or FSC FA-LSP always consumes the fixed bandwidth for the LSP as long as it exists (and is fully instantiated) because statistical multiplexing is not available. If there is low traffic demand, some FA-LSPs, which do not carry any LSPs may be released so that resources are released. Alternatively, the FA-LSPs may be retained for future usage. Release or retention of underutilized FA-LSPs is a policy decision. As part of the re-optimization process, the MRN solution MUST allow rerouting of FA-LSPs while keeping interface identifiers of FA links unchanged. Additional FAs MAY also be created based on policy, which might consider residual resources and the change of traffic demand across the region. By creating the new FAs, the network performance such as maximum residual capacity may be improved. As the number of FAs grows, the residual resource may decrease. In this case, re-optimization MAY be invoked according the policy. 4.1.2.2 Virtual FAs If FAs are used to enable connectivity over part or all of the lower- region, it may be considered disadvantageous to fully instantiate (i.e. pre-provision) the FA-LSPs since this may reserve bandwidth within the lower-region network that could be used for other LSPs in the absence of the upper-region traffic. However, in order that the upper-region can route traffic across the lower-region, the FA links MAY (this is not a MUST requirement as you Shiomoto et al Expires April 2005 8 Requirements for GMPLS-based multi-region and multi-layer networks October 2004 can route an upper region LSP into a lower region based on lower region TE-links, even if there is no FA) still be advertised into the lower-region as TE links. Such FA links that represent the possibility of an FA-LSP are termed "virtual FAs". If an upper-region LSP that makes use of a virtual FA is set up, the underlying FA-LSP MUST be immediately signaled if it has not already been signaled. If virtual FAs are used in place of FAs, the TE links across the lower-region can remain stable using pre-computed paths while wastage of bandwidth within the lower-region, and unnecessary reservation of adaptation ports at the border nodes is avoided. The set of the virtual FAs defines the virtual topology across the lower region. The solution is expected to deliver the following mechanism in terms of the build-up of virtual topology operations taking into account the (forecast) traffic demand and available resource in the lower-region. The virtual topology MAY be modified dynamically (by adding or removing virtual FAs) according to the change of the (forecast) traffic demand and the available resource in the lower-region. The virtual topology can be changed by setting up and/or tearing down virtual FA-LSPs as well as by changes to real links and to real FAs. The maximum number of FAs that can be soft provisioned on a given resources SHOULD be well-engineered. How to design the virtual topology and its changes is out of scope of this document. 4.1.3 FA LSP Attribute inheritance FA TE-Link parameters SHOULD be inherited from FA-LSP parameters. This includes: - Interface Switching Capability - TE metric - Max LSP bandwidth per preemption priority - Max Reservable bandwidth - Protection attribute - Min LSP bandwidth (depending on the Switching Capability) Inheritance rules MUST be applied based on specific policies. Particular attention should be given to the inheritance of TE metric and protection attributes. 4.1.4 Verify the FA before it enters service When the FA is created, it SHOULD be verified before it enters the in-service state. Data-plane connectivity, performance SHOULD be examined. 4.1.5 Disruption minimization Shiomoto et al Expires April 2005 9 Requirements for GMPLS-based multi-region and multi-layer networks October 2004 When reconfiguring the virtual network topology according to the traffic demand change, the upper-region LSP may be disrupted. Such disruption MUST be minimized. When residual resource decreases to a certain level, some FAs may be released according to policies. Ideally, only FAs that are not carrying LSPs would be released, but in some cases it may be necessary to release FAs that are carrying traffic. 4.1.6 Path computation re-optimization stability When the virtual network topology is reconfigured, the path computation over the virtual network topology may be affected (re- optimized). The re-optimization of the path computation should be carefully controlled when the virtual network topology is reconfigured. The path computation is dependent on the network topology and associated link state. The path computation stability of upper region may be impaired if the Virtual Network Topology frequently changes and/or if the status and TE parameters (TE metric for instance) of links in the Virtual Network Topology changes frequently. In this context, robustness of the Virtual Network Topology is defined as the capability to smooth changes that may occur and avoid their subsequent propagation. Changes of the Virtual Network Topology may be caused by the creation and/or deletion of several LSPs. Creation and deletion of LSPs may be triggered by adjacent regions or through operational actions to meet change of traffic demand. Routing robustness should be traded with adaptability with respect to the change of incoming traffic requests. A full mesh of LSPs may be created between every pair of border nodes of the PSC region. The merit of a full mesh of PSC FAs is that it provides stability to the PSC-level routing. That is, the forwarding table of an PSC-LSR is not impacted by re-routing changes within the lower-region (e.g., TDM). Further, there is always full PSC reachability and immediate access to bandwidth to support PSC LSPs. But it also has significant drawbacks, since it requires the maintenance of n^2 RSVP-TE sessions, which may be quite CPU and memory consuming (scalability impact). 4.1.7 Computing paths with and without nested signaling Path computation may take into account region boundaries when computing a path for an LSP. For example, path computation may restrict the path taken by an LSP to only the links whose interface switching capability is PSC-1. Shiomoto et al Expires April 2005 10 Requirements for GMPLS-based multi-region and multi-layer networks October 2004 Interface switching capability is used as a constraint in computing the path. A TDM-LSP is routed over the topology composed of links, both of whose ends has TDM switching capability. In Figure . a TDM-LSP is routed from LSR-P1, through TDM_SW-T1 and TDM_SW-T2, to LSR-P2. The path for the TDM-LSP is composed of links, both of whose ends has TDM switching capability. Once the TDM LSP is set up, it is advertised as an FA-LSP, both ends of which are PSC. In calculating the path for the PSC-LSP, the TE database is filtered to include the link, both ends of which include only PSC. In this way hierarchical routing of the PSC-LSP and TDM-LSP is done by using a TE database filtered with respect to switching capability. .................................. : .................. : : : : : : PSC : TDM : : : +--+ : +--+ +--+ : +--+ : : |P1|-----|T1|-----|T2|----|P2| : : +--+ : +--+ +--+ : +--+ : : : : : : .................. : .................................. Figure . Path computation in MRN. There may be a case, in which we can set up the LSP if we build new lower-region LSPs along the computed path. Suppose that we set up the TDM-LSP between P1 and P2 in Figure .. The TDM-LSP is routed over the path T1-L1-L2-T2. At this time, there is no direct link between T1 and T2. Then, the LSC-LSP is set up between T1 and T2. The LSC-LSP setup request (between T1 and T2) is triggered by the TDM-LSP setup request (between P1 and P2). If triggered signaling is allowed, the path computation mechanism may produce a route containing multiple regions. .................................................. : .................................. : : : ................. : : : : : : : : : PSC : TDM : LSC : : : : +--+ : +--+ : +--+ +--+ : +--+ : +--+ : : |P1|-----|T1|-----|L1|---|L2|-----|T2|----|P2| : : +--+ : +--+ : +--+ +--+ : +--+ : +--+ : : : ................. : : : .................................. : .................................................. Figure . Path computation in MRN. Shiomoto et al Expires April 2005 11 Requirements for GMPLS-based multi-region and multi-layer networks October 2004 4.1.8 Handling both vertical and horizontal integration The MRN can consist of plain and hybrid nodes. The path computation mechanism in the MRN SHOULD be able to compute the paths consisting of plain and hybrid nodes. Recall the plain node model shown in Figure 2. The switching capability of both ends of a TE-link may or may not be the same. For a TE-link between an LSR and a TDM switch, the switching capability of the end-point on the LSR-side is PSC while the one on the TDM switch-side is TDM. For a TE-link between two TDM switches, the switching capability of the both end-points is TDM. The links of the hybrid node shown in Figure 3 are advertised as TE- links with multiple interface switching capabilities: PSC and TDM. The hybrid node is used as a transit node for a TDM-region. At the same time, the hybrid node is used as an ingress, egress, or transit node for the PSC-region. 4.1.9 Advertisement of the available adaptation resource A node, hosting multiple ISCs, is required to hold and advertise resource information on its internal links. For example, if the hybrid node shown in Figure 3 is used as an ingress or egress node, a cross-connection is made between the port #a and the port #b in the TDM switching element. Once the cross-connection is made, Link 1 is PSC not TDM capable. Link1 is advertised as a new FA with a single switching capability: PSC. After that, there is no available internal link to connect port #b to the PSC. Link 2 is still advertised as being capable of TDM and PSC, but there is no available resource to provide PSC. Therefore, within multi-region networks, the advertisement of the so- called adaptation capability to terminate LSPs is required, as it provides critical information when performing multi-region path computation. 4.2. Requirements for multi-layer service 4.2.1 Support multiple service networks Since service providers sometime provide multiple different services in terms of contracts, areas of provision, access technologies, etc. even though the provided services belong to the same layer, multi- layer service networks should support the capability to accommodate multiple service networks within a single server network. 4.2.2 Support multiple layer networks Shiomoto et al Expires April 2005 12 Requirements for GMPLS-based multi-region and multi-layer networks October 2004 Since service providers sometime provide multiple different services in terms of layers to efficiently to support such different services, multi-layer service networks should support the capability to accomodate multiple different layers service networks within a single server network. 4.2.3 Address space separation for different service networks Especially, since service networks may follow different administratic policies and/or organizations, the control technlogies should be able to be different. One specific difference is in address spaces. 4.2.4 Autonomous control of optical path setup/teardown Modification and re-optimization of LSPs is not only for GMPLS based multi region networks. This is also for multi-layer network where the providor network is based on such GMPLS capability to be utilised on the requirements from service networks which may not be capable of GMPLS. Consider examples on traffic demands can be measured even in the legacy service network to determin the need of creation and modification of provider GMPLS LSPs. 5. Security Considerations The current version of .his document does not introduce any new security considerations as it only lists a set of requirements. In the futrue versions, new security requirements may be added. 6. References 6.1. Normative References 6.2. Informative References [MPLSGMPLS] D. Brungard, J. L. Roux, E. Oki, D. Papadimitriou, D. Shimazaki, K. Shiomoto, "Migrating from IP/MPLS to GMPLS networks," draft-oki-ccamp-gmpls-ip-interworking-03.txt (work in progress) July 2004. [GMPLS-ROUTING] K. Kompella and Y. Rekhter, "Routing Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching," draft-ietf- ccamp-gmpls-routing-09.txt, Octorber 2003 (work in progress). [Inter-domain] A. Farrel, J-P. Vasseur, and A. Ayyangar, "A framework for inter-domain MPLS traffic engineering," <draft-ietf-ccamp-inter- domain-framework-00.txt> July 2004. [HIER] K. Kompella and Y. Rekhter, "LSP hierarchy with generalized MPLS TE," <draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-08.txt> Sept. 2002. [MAMLTE] K. Shiomoto et al., "Multi-area multi-layer traffic engineering using hierarchical LSPs in GMPLS networks", draft- shiomoto-multiarea-te-01.txt (work in progress). Shiomoto et al Expires April 2005 13 Requirements for GMPLS-based multi-region network October 2004 [GMPLS-LMP] J. Land, "Link management protocol (LMP)," draft-ietf- ccamp-lmp-10.txt (work in progress), October 2003. 7. Author's Addresses Kohei Shiomoto NTT Network Service Systems Laboratories 3-9-11 Midori-cho, Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180-8585, Japan Email: shiomoto.kohei@lab.ntt.co.jp Dimitri Papadimitriou Alcatel Francis Wellensplein 1, B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium Phone : +32 3 240 8491 E-mail: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be Jean-Louis Le Roux France Telecom R&D av Pierre Marzin 22300 Lannion France Email: jeanlouis.leroux@francetelecom.com Martin Vigoureux (Alcatel) Route de Nozay, 91461 Marcoussis cedex, France Phone: +33 (0)1 69 63 18 52 E-mail: martin.vigoureux@alcatel.fr 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 Contributors Eiji Oki (NTT Network Service Systems Laboratories) 3-9-11 Midori-cho Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180-8585, Japan Phone : +81 422 59 3441 E-mail: 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 3441 E-mail: ichiro.inoue@lab.ntt.co.jp Emmanuel Dotaro (Alcatel) Route de Nozay, 91461 Marcoussis cedex, France Phone : +33 1 6963 4723 E-mail: emmanuel.dotaro@alcatel.fr TBD et al Expires April 2005 14 Requirements for GMPLS-based multi-region network October 2004 8. 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. 9. Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). 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. TBD et al Expires April 2005 15