Skip to main content

Requirements for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Routing for the Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)
RFC 4258

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:


From: The IESG <>
To: IETF-Announce <>
Cc: Internet Architecture Board <>,
    RFC Editor <>, 
    ccamp mailing list <>, 
    ccamp chair <>
Subject: Document Action: 'Requirements for Generalized MPLS 
         (GMPLS) Routing for Automatically Switched Optical Network 
         (ASON)' to Informational RFC 

The IESG has approved the following document:

- 'Requirements for Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Routing for Automatically 
   Switched Optical Network (ASON) '
   <draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-reqts-06.txt> as an Informational RFC

This document is the product of the Common Control and Measurement Plane 
Working Group. 

The IESG contact persons are Alex Zinin and Ross Callon.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:

Ballot Text

Technical Summary
   The Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) suite of 
   protocols has been defined to control different switching 
   technologies as well as different applications. These include support 
   for requesting Time Division Multiplexing (TDM) connections including 
   Synchronous Optical Network (SONET)/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy 
   (SDH) and Optical Transport Networks (OTNs). 
   This document concentrates on the routing requirements on the GMPLS 
   suite of protocols to support the capabilities and functionalities 
   for an Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON) as defined by 
Working Group Summary
 This document is the product of a design team that included IETF and ITU
 members. The goal of the document was to represent routing-related 
 requirements for ASON networks received from ITU in a liaison statement 
 in the form understandable for a usual IETF participant.
Protocol Quality

 This document has been reviewed for IESG by Alex Zinin. Adrian Farrel
 followed up with the WG on the provided comments.

 This document required no specific IANA action.

RFC Editor Note