OSPF Working Group JP Vasseur
Internet Draft Peter Psenak
Cisco System Inc.
Seisho Yasukawa
NTT
Jean-Louis Le Roux
France Telecom
Category: Standard Track
Expires: January 2005 July 2004
OSPF MPLS Traffic Engineering capabilities
draft-vasseur-ospf-te-caps-00.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
patent or IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, and any
of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with RFC
3668.
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working
documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas,
and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Abstract
This document specifies OSPF traffic engineering capability TLVs
related to various MPLS Traffic Engineering capabilities. These OSPF
TE capability TLVs are carried within the OSPF router information LSA
(opaque type of 4, opaque ID of 0).
Vasseur et al. [Page 1]
Internet Draft draft-vasseur-ospf-te-caps-00 July 2004
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.
Table of Contents
1. Terminology.....................................................2
2. Introduction....................................................3
3. TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV format........................4
3.1. The DATA-PLANE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV.............................4
3.2. The CONTROL-PLANE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV..........................5
4. PCED TLV format.................................................5
4.1. PCE-ADDRESS sub-TLV...........................................6
4.2. PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV........................................6
4.3. AS-DOMAIN sub-TLV.............................................8
5. TE-Mesh-Group TLV format........................................8
6. Element of procedure............................................9
6.1. TE-NODE-CAP TLV...............................................9
6.2. PCED TLV.....................................................10
6.3. TE-MESH-GROUP TLV............................................12
7. Interoperability with routers non supporting this capability...12
8. Security considerations........................................12
9. Intellectual Property Statement................................12
9.1. IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement...............................13
10. References....................................................13
11. Authors' Address:.............................................14
1. Terminology
Terminology used in this document
LSR: Label Switch Router.
PCE: Path Computation Element whose function is to compute the
path of a TE LSP it is not the head-end for. The PCE may be
an LSR or an offline tool not forwarding packet.
PCC: Path Computation Client (any head-end LSR) requesting a TE
LSP path computation to the Path Computation Element.
TE LSP: Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path.
TE LSP head-end: head/source of the TE LSP.
TE LSP tail-end: tail/destination of the TE LSP.
Intra-area TE LSP: TE LSP whose path does not transit across
areas.
Vasseur et al. [Page 2]
Internet Draft draft-vasseur-ospf-te-caps-00 July 2004
Inter-area TE LSP: A TE LSP whose path transits across at least
two different IGP areas.
Inter-AS MPLS TE LSP: A TE LSP whose path transits across at least
two different ASes or sub-ASes (BGP confederations).
2. Introduction
This document defines OSPF protocol extensions and procedures for
the advertisement TE node capabilities. A functional description of
these extensions can be found in [TE-INFO], and is not repeated here.
This document describes the usage of three OSPF TE capabilities TLVs:
the PCED (PCE Discovery), the TE-MESH-GROUP and the TE-NODE-CAP
TLVs. These OSPF TE capability TLVs are carried within the OSPF
router information LSA (opaque type of 4, opaque ID of 0) specified
in [OSPF-CAP].
Each TE TLV defined in this document (carried in an OSPF router
information LSA as defined in [OSPF-CAP]) has the following format:
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Value //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where
Type: identifies the TLV type
Length: length of the value field in octets
The format of the TLV is the same as the TLV format used by the
Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF [OSPF-TE]. The TLV is padded
to four-octet alignment; padding is not included in the length field
(so a three octet value would have a length of three, but the total
size of the TLV would be eight octets). Nested TLVs are also 32-bit
aligned. Unrecognized types are ignored. All types between 32768
and 65535 are reserved for vendor-specific extensions. All other
undefined type codes are reserved for future assignment by IANA.
Note that a sub-TLV is similar to a TLV: TLV are carried within an
LSA as sub-TLVs are carried within TLVs. Each sub-TLV describes a
particular MPLS Traffic Engineering capability. In the rest of this
document both terms will be used interchangeably.
Vasseur et al. [Page 3]
Internet Draft draft-vasseur-ospf-te-caps-00 July 2004
The TE-NODE-CAP TLV is used for the advertisement of both control
plane and data plane TE node capabilities. The TE-NODE-CAP sub-TLV is
made of a set of non-ordered sub-TLVs each having the format as
described above.
The PCED TLV is used for the advertisement of Path Computation
Element Capabilities. The PCED sub-TLV is made of a set
of non-ordered sub-TLVs each having the format as described above.
The TE-MESH-GROUP TLV is used to advertise the desire to
join/leave a given MPLS-TE mesh group. The TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV does
not have any sub-TLV currently defined.
3. TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV format
This section specifies the sub-TLVs carried within the TE-NODE-CAP
TLV payload which defines the TE node capabilities.
The TE-NODE-CAP TLV type is 1.
The TE-NODE-CAP TLV is made of various non ordered sub-TLVs.
Currently two sub-TLVs are defined.
TLV type Length Name
1 variable DATA-PLANE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV
2 variable CONTROL-PLANE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV
Any non recognized sub-TLV MUST be silently ignored.
More sub-TLV could be added in the future to handle new capabilities
3.1. The DATA-PLANE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV
The DATA-PLANE-CAPABILITY is a series of bit flags and has a variable
length.
CODE: 1
LENGTH: Variable (N*8)
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|B|E| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
TE-NODE-CAP sub-TLV format
Two bits are currently defined:
Vasseur et al. [Page 4]
Internet Draft draft-vasseur-ospf-te-caps-00 July 2004
-B bit: When set this indicates that the LSR can act as a branch node
on a P2MP LSP.
-E bit: When set, this indicates that the LSR can act as a bud LSR on
a P2MP LSP, i.e. and LSR that is both transit and egress.
See [P2MP-REQ]) and [RSVP-P2MP] for more detail on the usage of these
bits.
Note that more flags may be defined in the future.
3.2. The CONTROL-PLANE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV
The CONTROL-PLANE-CAPABILITY is a series of bit flags and has a
variable length.
CODE: 2
LENGTH: Variable (N*8)
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|M|G|P| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
TE-NODE-CAP sub-TLV format
Currently three flags are defined:
-M bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports MPLS-TE
signalling ([RSVP-TE]).
-G bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports GMPLS signalling
([RSVP-G]).
-P bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports P2MP MPLS-TE
signalling ([RSVP-P2MP]).
Note that more flags may be defined in the future.
4. PCED TLV format
This section specifies the sub-TLVs carried within the PCED TLV
payload which define the PCE capabilities.
The PCED TLV type is 2
The PCED TLV is made of various non ordered sub-TLVs defined
Vasseur et al. [Page 5]
Internet Draft draft-vasseur-ospf-te-caps-00 July 2004
bellow:
TLV type Length Name
1 variable PCE-ADDRESS sub-TLV
2 8 PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV
3 8 AS-DOMAIN sub-TLV
Any non recognized sub-TLV MUST be silently ignored.
4.1. PCE-ADDRESS sub-TLV
The PCE-ADDRESS sub-TLV specifies the IP address to be used to reach
the PCE described by this PCED sub-TLV. This address will typically
be a loop-back address that is always reachable, provided the router
is not isolated. The PCE-ADDRESS sub-TLV is mandatory.
The PCE-ADDRESS sub-TLV type is 1, length is 4 octets for an IPv4
address and 20 octets for an IPv6 address, and the value is the PCE
IPv4 or IPv6 address.
CODE: 1
LENGTH: Variable (4 or 20)
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| address-type | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// PCE IP address //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
PCE-ADDRESS sub-TLV format
Address-type:
1 IPv4
2 IPv6
The PCE-ADDRESS sub-TLV MUST appear exactly once in the PCED sub-TLV
originated by a router. The only exception is when the PCE has both
an IPv4 and IPv6 address; in this case, two Path Computation Element
address sub-TLVs might be inserted: one for the IPv4 address, one for
the IPv6 address, in this order.
4.2. PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV
The PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV is used by the PCE to signal its Path
Computation Element capabilities. This could then be used by an LSR
to select the appropriate PCE among a list of PCE candidates. This
sub-TLV is optional.
Vasseur et al. [Page 6]
Internet Draft draft-vasseur-ospf-te-caps-00 July 2004
The PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV type is 2 and the length is 8 octets.
CODE: 2
LENGTH: 8
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved |D|M|P|A|I|L|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV format
The first 3 bits L, I and A defines the PCE scope for which the
Path Computation Element is capable of performing the TE LSP path
computation.
L bit:
Local scope. When set, this flag indicates that the PCE can compute
paths for the area/level the ISIS CAPABILITY TLV is flooded into (the
PCE can compute TE LSP paths for intra-area TE LSPs).
I bit:
Inter-area scope. When set, the PCE can perform TE LSP path
computation for inter-area TE LSPs but within the same AS.
A bit:
Multi-domain scope. When set, the PCE can perform path computation
for inter-AS TE LSPs. In this case, the PCED sub-TLV MUST contain one
or more AS-DOMAIN sub-TLV(s), each describing the domain for which
the PCE can compute TE LSPs paths having their destination address in
the respective AS.
Note that those flags are not exclusive (a PCE may set one or more
flags).
P bit:
The notion of request priority allows a PCC to specify how urgent the
request is, by setting a flag in the REQUEST_ID object of the Path
computation request message. See [PATH-COMP] for more details.
P=1: the PCE takes into account the ¬¬request priority¬¬ in its
scheduling of the various requests.
P=0: the PCE does not take the request priority into account.
M bit
M=1: the PCE is capable of computing more than one path obeying a set
of specified constraints (in a single pass), provided that they
exist.
M=0: the PCE cannot compute more than one path in a single pass
Vasseur et al. [Page 7]
Internet Draft draft-vasseur-ospf-te-caps-00 July 2004
obeying a set of specified constraints.
D bit
The PCC may request the PCE to compute N diversely routed paths
obeying a set of specified constraints. Such N paths may not exist of
course depending on the current state of the network. S
D=1: the PCE is capable of computing diversely (link, node, SRLG)
routed paths.
D=0: the PCE is not capable of computing diversely routed paths.
The D bit is relevant if and only if the M bit has been set to 1. It
MUST be set to 0 if the M bit is set to 0.
Note that for future capabilities, it may be desirable to introduce
new flags or may be new sub-TLV to be carried in the PCED capability
sub-TLV if the capability needs more than just a single flag to be
described.
4.3. AS-DOMAIN sub-TLV
When the PCE can perform path computation for an inter-AS TE LSP, the
A bit of the PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV MUST be set. Moreover, one or
more sub-TLVs MUST be included within the PCED sub-TLV, each sub-TLV
identifying an AS number. Each AS-DOMAIN sub-TLV has the following
form:
CODE: 3
LENGTH: 4
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AS Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
AS-DOMAIN sub-TLV format
The AS-DOMAIN sub-TLV type is 3, length is 4 octets, and the value is
the AS number identifying the AS for which the PCE can compute inter-
AS TE LSP paths (TE LSP having their destination address in this AS).
When coded on four bytes, the AS Number field MUST have its
left two bytes set to 0.
The set of AS-DOMAIN sub-TLVs specifies a list of ASes (AS1,à,
ASn). This means that the PCE can compute TE LSP path such that the
destination address of the TE LSP belongs to this set of ASes.
5. TE-Mesh-Group TLV format
The TE-MESH-GROUP TLV has the following format:
Vasseur et al. [Page 8]
Internet Draft draft-vasseur-ospf-te-caps-00 July 2004
CODE: 3
LENGTH: Variable (N*8 octets)
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| mesh-group-number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tail-end address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tail-end name |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV format
N is the number of mesh-groups.
For each Mesh-group announced by the LSR, the TLV contains:
- A mesh-group-number: identifies the mesh-group number,
- A Tail-end address: user configurable IP address to be used as a
tail-end address by other LSRs belonging to the same mesh-group.
- A Tail-end name: 32-bits string which facilitates the TE LSP
identification which can be very useful in inter-area/AS MPLS TE
environments.
6. Element of procedure
The TLVs defined in this document are carried within an OSPF router
information opaque LSA (opaque type of 4, opaque ID of 0) as defined
in [OSPF-CAP].
A router MUST originate a new OSPF router information LSA whenever
the content of the any of the carried TLV changes or whenever
required by the regular OSPF procedure (LSA refresh (every
LSRefreshTime)).
As defined in RFC2370, an opaque LSA has a flooding scope determined
by its LSA type:
- link-local (type 9),
- area-local (type 10)
- entire OSPF routing domain (type 11). In this case, the
flooding scope is equivalent to the Type 5 LSA flooding scope.
A router may generate multiple OSPF router information LSAs with
different flooding scopes.
6.1. TE-NODE-CAP TLV
The TE-NODE-CAP may be carried within a type 10 or 11 router
information LSA depending on the MPLS Traffic Engineering capability.
The flooding scope is defined on a per capability basis. Capabilities
Vasseur et al. [Page 9]
Internet Draft draft-vasseur-ospf-te-caps-00 July 2004
with a identical flooding scope MUST be flooded within the same TE-
NODE-CAP TLV carried within a router information LSA.
6.2. PCED TLV
The PCED TLV may be carried within a type 10 or 11 router information
LSA depending on the Path Computation Element scope.
- If the PCE can compute an intra-area TE LSP, the L bit of the
PCE-CAPABILITY TLV of the PCED TLV MUST be set and the PCED TLV
MUST be generated within a Type 10 router information LSA,
- If the PCE can compute an inter-area TE LSP, the I bit of the
PCE-CAPABILITY TLV of the PCED TLV MUST be set. The PCED TLV
MUST be generated:
- within a Type 10 router information LSA if the PCE can
compute an inter-area TE LSP path for the LSRs in the
area it is attached to (for instance the PCE is an ABR
computing an inter-area TE LSP path for its attached
areas)
- within a Type 11 router information LSA if the PCE can
compute an inter-area TE LSP path for the whole domain.
- If the PCE can compute an inter-AS TE LSP path, the A bit of
the PCE-CAPABILITY TLV of the PCED TLV MUST be set and the PCED
TLV MUST be generated within a Type 11 router information LSA,
Note: if the PCE can compute both intra and inter-area TE LSP
paths, both the L and I bits of the PCE-CAPABILITY TLV MUST be set.
The flags are not exclusive. This only applies to the PCED TLV
carried within the type 10 router information LSA.
If a PCE can compute an intra-area TE LSP and an inter-area or inter-
AS TE LSP path, it MUST originate:
- a type 10 OSPF router information LSA with a PCED TLV having
the L, I and A flags of its PCE-CAPABILITY TLV set as
described above.
- a type 11 OSPF router information LSA with a PCED TLV having
L=0 and the I and A flags of its PCE-CAPABILITY TLV set as
described above.
Example
<-----------------AS1----------------->
<---area 1--><----area 0-----><-area 2->
R1---------ABR1*------------ABR3*-----| ------------
| | | | | |
| S1 | S2 | ASBR1*--eBGP--ASBR2-| AS2 |
| | | | | |
R2---------ABR2*------------ABR4------| ------------
Vasseur et al. [Page 10]
Internet Draft draft-vasseur-ospf-te-caps-00 July 2004
The areas contents are not detailed.
Assumptions:
- area 1 and area 2 are regular areas
- the * indicates a Path Computation Element capability
- ABR1 is a PCE for area 1 only
- ABR2 is a PCE for intra and inter-area TE LSP path computation in
area 0 and 1
- ABR3 is a PCE for only inter-area TE LSP path computation for the
whole domain,
- S1 is a PCE for area 1 only
- S2 is a PCE for the whole domain,
- ASBR1 is a PCE for inter-AS TE LSPs whose destination resides in
AS2 (not for intra or inter-area area TE LSPs).
In the example above:
- S1 originates a type 10 router information LSA with a PCED TLV such
that:
o The L bit of the PCE-CAPABILITY TLV is set,
o The I and A bits of the PCE-CAPABILITY TLV are cleared.
- ABR1 originates in area 1 a type 10 router information LSA with a
PCED TLV such that:
o The L bit of the PCE-CAPABILITY TLV is set,
o The I and A bits of the PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV are cleared,
- ABR2 originates in both area 0 and 1 a type 10 router information
LSA with a PCED TLV such that:
o The L and I bits of the PCE-CAPABILITY TLV are set,
o The A bit of the PCE-CAPABILITY TLV is cleared
- ABR3 originates a type 11 router information LSA with a PCED TLV
such that:
o The L bit of the PCE-CAPABILITY TLV is cleared,
o The I bit of the PCE-CAPABILITY TLV is set,
o The A bit of the PCE-CAPABILITY TLV is cleared,
- S2 originates:
- in area 0 a type 10 router information LSA with a PCED TLV
such that:
o The L and I bits of the PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV are
set,
o The A bit of the PCE-CAPABILITY TLV is cleared,
- a type 11 router information LSA with a PCED TLV such that:
o The L bit of the PCE-CAPABILITY TLV is cleared,
o The I bit of the PCE-CAPABILITY TLV is set,
o The A bit of the PCE-CAPABILITY TLV is cleared,
- ASBR1 originates a type 11 router information LSA with a PCED TLV
such that:
Vasseur et al. [Page 11]
Internet Draft draft-vasseur-ospf-te-caps-00 July 2004
o The L bit and the I bit of the PCE-CAPABILITY TLV are cleared,
o The A bit of the PCE-CAPABILITY TLV set,
o One AS-DOMAIN TLV within the PCED TLV with AS number = AS2
The receipt of a new router information LSA carrying a PCED TLV never
triggers an SPF calculation.
When an LSR or a Path Computation Element is newly configured as a
PCE, the corresponding router information LSA MUST be immediately
flooded.
When a PCE capability changes, the corresponding router information
LSA MUST be immediately flooded.
When a PCE looses its Path Computation Element capability, the
corresponding router information LSA MUST be immediately flooded with
LS age = MaxAge.
6.3. TE-MESH-GROUP TLV
The TE-MESH-GROUP TLV may be carried within a type 10 or 11 router
information LSA depending on the MPLS TE mesh-group profile:
- If the MPLS TE mesh-group is contained within a single area
(all the LSRs have their head-end and tail-end LSR within the
same OSPF area), the TE-MESH-GROUP TLV MUST be generated
within a Type 10 router information LSA,
- If the MPLS TE mesh-group spans multiple OSPF areas, the TE-
MESH-GROUP TLV MUST be generated within a Type 11 router
information LSA,
7. Interoperability with routers non supporting this capability
There is no interoperability issue as a router not supporting the TE-
NODE-CAP, PCED or TE-MESH-GROUP TLVs SHOULD just silently discard
those TLVs as specified in RFC2370.
8. Security considerations
No new security issues are raised in this document.
9. Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Vasseur et al. [Page 12]
Internet Draft draft-vasseur-ospf-te-caps-00 July 2004
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..
9.1. IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement
By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
RFC 3668.
10. References
Normative references
[RFC] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to indicate
requirements levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
[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.
[OSPF-v2] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998.
[OSPF-TE] Katz, D., Yeung, D., Kompella, K., "Traffic Engineering
Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September 2003.
[OSPF-CAP] Lindem, A., Shen, N., Aggarwal, R., Shaffer, S., Vasseur,
J.P., "Extensions to OSPF for advertising Optional Router
Capabilities", draft-ietf-ospf-cap-02.txt, work in progress.
[TE-INFO] Vasseur, J.P., Le Roux, J.L., et al., "Routing extensions
for discovery of TE router information", draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-
router-info-00.txt, work in progress.
Informative References
[OSPF-G] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "OSPF extensions in support of
Generalized Multi-protocol Label Switching", draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-
gmpls-extensions-12.txt, work in progress.
Vasseur et al. [Page 13]
Internet Draft draft-vasseur-ospf-te-caps-00 July 2004
[INT-AREA-REQ] Le Roux, J.L., Vasseur, J.P., Boyle, J., "Requirements
for inter-area MPLS Traffic Engineering", draft-ietf-tewg-interarea-
mpls-te-req-02.txt, work in progress.
[INT-AS-REQ] Zhang, R., Vasseur, J.P., "MPLS Inter-AS Traffic
Engineering Requirements", draft-ietf-tewg-interas-mpls-te-req-
07.txt, work in progress.
[INT-DOMAIN-FRWK] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.P., Ayyangar, A., "A
Framework for Inter-Domain MPLS Traffic Engineering", draft-farrel-
ccamp-inter-domain-framework-01.txt, work in progress.
[P2MP-Req] Yasukawa, S., et. al., "Requirements for point-to-
multipoint extension to RSVP-TE", draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-requirement-
02.txt, work in progress.
[RSVP-TE] Awduche, D., et. al., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RSVP-G] Berger, L, et. al., "GMPLS Signaling RSVP-TE extensions",
RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RSVP-P2MP] Aggarwal, Papadimitriou, Yasukawa, et. al. "Extensions to
RSVP-TE for point-to-multipoint TE LSPs", draft-dry-mpls-rsvp-te-
p2mp-00.txt, work in progress.
11. Authors' Address:
Jean-Philippe Vasseur (Editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
300 Beaver Brook Road
Boxborough , MA - 01719
USA
Email: jpv@cisco.com
Peter Psenak
CISCO Systems, Inc.
Pegasus Parc
De Kleetlaan 6A
1831, Diegem
BELGIUM
Email: ppsenak@cisco.com
Seisho Yasukawa
NTT Network Service Systems Laboratories, NTT Corporation
9-11, Midori-Cho 3-Chome
Musashino-Shi, Tokyo 180-8585 Japan
Phone: + 81 422 59 4769
Email: yasukawa.seisho@lab.ntt.co.jp
Jean-Louis Le Roux
Vasseur et al. [Page 14]
Internet Draft draft-vasseur-ospf-te-caps-00 July 2004
France Telecom
2, avenue Pierre-Marzin
22307 Lannion Cedex
FRANCE
Email: jeanlouis.leroux@francetelecom.com
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.
Vasseur et al. [Page 15]