Data Channel Status Confirmation Extensions for the Link Management Protocol
RFC 5818
| Document | Type |
RFC - Proposed Standard
(April 2010; No errata)
Updated by RFC 6898
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Julien Meuric , Snigdho Bardalai , Diego Caviglia , Huiying Xu , Dan Li | ||
| Last updated | 2015-10-14 | ||
| Replaces | draft-li-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
| Stream | WG state | (None) | |
| Document shepherd | No shepherd assigned | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 5818 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | Adrian Farrel | ||
| Send notices to | (None) | ||
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) D. Li
Request for Comments: 5818 H. Xu
Category: Standards Track Huawei
ISSN: 2070-1721 S. Bardalai
Fujitsu
J. Meuric
France Telecom
D. Caviglia
Ericsson
April 2010
Data Channel Status Confirmation Extensions
for the Link Management Protocol
Abstract
This document defines simple additions to the Link Management
Protocol (LMP) to provide a control plane tool that can assist in the
location of stranded resources by allowing adjacent Label-Switching
Routers (LSRs) to confirm data channel statuses and provide triggers
for notifying the management plane if any discrepancies are found.
As LMP is already used to verify data plane connectivity, it is
considered to be an appropriate candidate to support this feature.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5818.
Li et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 5818 Data Channel Statuses and LMP April 2010
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................3
2. Specification of Requirements ...................................4
3. Problem Explanation .............................................4
3.1. Mismatch Caused by Manual Configuration ....................4
3.2. Mismatch Caused by LSP Deletion ............................5
3.3. Failed Resources ...........................................6
4. Motivation ......................................................6
5. Extensions to LMP ...............................................7
5.1. Confirm Data Channel Status Messages .......................7
5.1.1. ConfirmDataChannelStatus Messages ...................8
5.1.2. ConfirmDataChannelStatusAck Messages ................8
5.1.3. ConfirmDataChannelStatusNack Messages ...............8
5.2. Data Channel Status Subobject ..............................9
5.3. Message Construction ......................................10
5.4. Backward Compatibility ....................................10
6. Procedures .....................................................11
7. Security Considerations ........................................12
8. IANA Considerations ............................................12
8.1. LMP Message Types .........................................12
8.2. LMP Data Link Object Subobject ............................13
8.3. LMP Error_Code Class Type .................................13
9. Acknowledgments ................................................13
10. References ....................................................13
10.1. Normative References .....................................13
10.2. Informative References ...................................14
Contributor's Address .............................................14
Li et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 5818 Data Channel Statuses and LMP April 2010
1. Introduction
Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) networks are
constructed from Traffic Engineering (TE) links connecting Label
Switching Routers (LSRs). The TE links are constructed from a set of
data channels. In this context, a data channel corresponds to a
resource label in a non-packet technology (such as a timeslot or a
lambda).
A data channel status mismatch exists if the LSR at one end of a TE
link believes that the data channel is assigned to carry data, but
the LSR at the other end does not. The term "ready to carry data"
means cross-connected or bound to an end-point for the receipt or
delivery of data.
Data channel mismatches cannot be detected from the TE information
advertised by the routing protocols [RFC4203], [RFC5307]. The
existence of some data channel mismatch problems may be detected by a
mismatch in the advertised bandwidths where bidirectional TE links
and bidirectional services are in use. However, where unidirectional
services exist, or where multiple data channel mismatches occur, it
is not possible to detect such errors through the routing protocol-
advertised TE information. In any case, there is no mechanism to
isolate the mismatches by determining which data channels are at
fault.
If a data channel mismatch exists, any attempt to use the data
channel for a new Label Switched Path (LSP) will fail. One end of
the TE link may attempt to assign the TE link for use, but the other
end will report the data channel as unavailable when the control
plane or management plane attempts to assign it to an LSP.
Although such a situation can be resolved through the use of the
Acceptable Label Set object in GMPLS signaling [RFC3473], such a
procedure is inefficient since it may require an additional signaling
exchange for each LSP that is set up. When many LSPs are to be set
up, and when there are many data channel mismatches, such
inefficiencies become significant. It is desirable to avoid the
additional signaling overhead, and to report the problems to the
management plane so that they can be resolved to improve the
efficiency of LSP setup.
Correspondingly, such a mismatch situation may give rise to
misconnections in the data plane, especially when LSPs are set up
using management plane operations.
Li et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 5818 Data Channel Statuses and LMP April 2010
Resources (data channels) that are in a mismatched state are often
described as "stranded resources". They are not in use for any LSP,
but they cannot be assigned for use by a new LSP because they appear
to be in use. Although it is theoretically possible for management
plane applications to audit all network resources to locate stranded
resources and to release them, this process is rarely performed
because of the difficulty of coordinating different Element
Management Systems (EMSs) and the associated risks of accidentally
releasing in-use resources. It is desirable to have a control plane
mechanism that detects and reports stranded resources.
This document defines simple additions to the Link Management
Protocol (LMP) [RFC4204] to provide a control plane tool that can
assist in the location of stranded resources by allowing adjacent
LSRs to confirm data channel statuses and provide triggers for
notifying the management plane if any discrepancies are found. As
LMP is already used to verify data plane connectivity, it is
considered to be an appropriate candidate to support this feature.
2. Specification of Requirements
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
3. Problem Explanation
Examples of data channel mismatches are described in the following
three scenarios.
In all of the scenarios, the specific channel resource of a data link
will be unavailable because of the data channel status mismatch, and
this channel resource will be wasted. Furthermore, a data channel
status mismatch may reduce the possibility of successful LSP
establishment, because a data channel status mismatch may result in
failure when establishing an LSP.
So it is desirable to confirm the data channel statuses as early as
possible.
3.1. Mismatch Caused by Manual Configuration
The operator may have configured a cross-connect at only one end of a
TE link using an EMS. The resource at one end of the data channel is
allocated, but the corresponding resource is still available at the
other end of the same data channel. In this case, the data channel
may appear to be available for use by the control plane when viewed
from one end of the TE link but, will be considered to be unavailable
Li et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 5818 Data Channel Statuses and LMP April 2010
by the other end of the TE link. Alternatively, the available end of
the data channel may be cross-connected by the management plane, and
a misconnection may result from the fact that the other end of the
data channel is already cross-connected.
Figure 1 shows a data channel between nodes A and B. The resource at
A's end of the TE link is allocated through manual configuration,
while the resource at B's end of the TE link is available, so the
data channel status is mismatched.
allocated available
+-+------------+-+
A |x| | | B
+-+------------+-+
data channel
Figure 1. Mismatch Caused by Manual Configuration
3.2. Mismatch Caused by LSP Deletion
The channel status of a data link may become mismatched during the
LSP deletion process. If the LSP deletion process is aborted in the
middle of the process (perhaps because of a temporary control plane
failure), the cross-connect at the upstream node may be removed while
the downstream node still keeps its cross-connect, if the LSP
deletion was initiated by the source node.
For example, in Figure 2, an LSP traverses nodes A, B, and C. Node B
resets abnormally when the LSP is being deleted. This results in the
cross-connects of nodes A and C being removed, but the cross-connect
of node B still being in use. So, the data channel statuses between
nodes A and B, and between nodes B and C are both mismatched.
<---------LSP--------->
+-+-------+-+-------+-+
| | |X| | |
+-+-------+-+-------+-+
A B C
Figure 2. Mismatch Caused by LSP Deletion
In [RFC2205] and [RFC3209], a "soft state" mechanism was defined to
prevent state discrepancies between LSRs. Resource ReSerVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) restart processes ([RFC3473],
[RFC5063]) have been defined: adjacent LSRs may resynchronize their
control plane state to reinstate information about LSPs that have
persisted in the data plane. Both mechanisms aim at keeping state
consistency among nodes and allow LSRs to detect mismatched data
Li et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 5818 Data Channel Statuses and LMP April 2010
plane states. The data plane handling of such mismatched states can
be treated as a local policy decision. Some deployments may decide
to automatically clean up the data plane state so it matches the
control plane state, but others may choose to raise an alert to the
management plane and leave the data plane untouched just in case it
is in use.
In such cases, data channel mismatches may arise after restart and
might not be cleared up by the restart procedures.
3.3. Failed Resources
Even if the situation is not common, it might happen that a
termination point of a TE link is seen as failed by one end, while on
the other end it is seen as OK. This problem may arise due to some
failure either in the hardware or in the status detection of the
termination point.
This mismatch in the termination point status can lead to failure in
the case of bidirectional LSP setup.
Good Failed
+-+------------+-+
A | | |X| B
+-+------------+-+
data channel
Path Message with Upstream Label---->
Figure 3. Mismatch Caused by Resource Failure
In this case, the upstream node chooses to use termination point A in
order to receive traffic from the downstream node. From the upstream
node's point of view, the resource is available and thus usable;
however, in the downstream node, the corresponding termination point
(resource B) is broken. This leads to a setup failure.
4. Motivation
The requirement does not come from a lack in GMPLS specifications
themselves but rather from operational concerns because, in most
cases, GMPLS-controlled networks will co-exist with legacy networks
and legacy procedures.
The protocol extensions defined in this document are intended to
detect data plane problems resulting from misuse or misconfigurations
triggered by user error, or resulting from failure to clean up the
data plane after control plane disconnection. It is anticipated that
human mistakes are probably the major source of errors to deal with.
Li et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 5818 Data Channel Statuses and LMP April 2010
This document is not intened to provide a protocol mechanism to deal
with broken implementations.
The procedures defined in this document are designed to be performed
on a periodic or on-demand basis. It is NOT RECOMMENDED that the
procedures be used to provide a continuous and on-line monitoring
process.
As LMP is already used to verify data plane connectivity, it is
considered to be an appropriate candidate to support this feature.
5. Extensions to LMP
A control plane tool to detect and isolate data channel mismatches is
provided in this document by simple additions to the Link Management
Protocol (LMP) [RFC4204]. It can assist in the location of stranded
resources by allowing adjacent LSRs to confirm data channel statuses.
Outline procedures are described in this section. More detailed
procedures are found in Section 6.
The message formats in the subsections that follow use Backus-Naur
Form (BNF) encoding as defined in [RFC5511].
5.1. Confirm Data Channel Status Messages
Extensions to LMP to confirm a data channel status are described
below. In order to confirm a data channel status, the new LMP
messages are sent between adjacent nodes periodically or driven by
some event (such as an operator command, a configurable timer, or the
rejection of an LSP setup message because of an unavailable
resource). The new LMP messages run over the control channel,
encapsulated in UDP with an LMP port number and IP addressing as
defined in "Link Management Protocol (LMP)" [RFC4204].
Three new messages are defined to check data channel status:
ConfirmDataChannelStatus, ConfirmDataChannelStatusAck, and
ConfirmDataChannelStatusNack. These messages are described in detail
in the following subsections. Message Type numbers are found in
Section 8.1.
5.1.1. ConfirmDataChannelStatus Messages
The ConfirmDataChannelStatus message is used to provide the remote
end of the data channel with the status of the local end of the data
channel and to ask the remote end to report its data channel. The
message may report on (and request information about) more than one
data channel.
Li et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 5818 Data Channel Statuses and LMP April 2010
<ConfirmDataChannelStatus Message> ::= <Common Header>
<LOCAL_LINK_ID>
<MESSAGE_ID>
<DATA_LINK>[<DATA_LINK>...]
When a node receives the ConfirmDataChannelStatus message, and the
data channel status confirmation procedure is supported at the node,
the node compares its own data channel statuses with all of the data
channel statuses sent by the remote end in the
ConfirmDataChannelStatus message. If a data channel status mismatch
is found, this mismatch result is expected to be reported to the
management plane for further action. Management plane reporting
procedures and actions are outside the scope of this document.
If the message is a Confirm Data Channel Status message, and the
MESSAGE_ID value is less than the largest MESSAGE_ID value previously
received from the sender for the specified TE link, then the message
SHOULD be treated as being out-of-order.
5.1.2. ConfirmDataChannelStatusAck Messages
The ConfirmDataChannelStatusAck message is sent back to the node that
originated the ConfirmDataChannelStatus message to return the
requested data channel statuses.
When the ConfirmDataChannelStatusAck message is received, the node
compares the received data channel statuses at the remote end with
those at the local end (the same operation as performed by the
receiver of the ConfirmDataChannelStatus message). If a data channel
status mismatch is found, the mismatch result is expected to be
reported to the management plane for further action.
<ConfirmDataChannelStatusAck Message> ::= <Common Header>
<MESSAGE_ID_ACK>
<DATA_LINK>[<DATA_LINK>...]
The contents of the MESSAGE_ID_ACK objects MUST be obtained from the
ConfirmDataChannelStatus message being acknowledged.
Note that the ConfirmDataChannelStatusAck message is used both when
the data channel statuses match and when they do not match.
5.1.3. ConfirmDataChannelStatusNack Messages
When a node receives the ConfirmDataChannelStatus message, if the
data channel status confirmation procedure is not supported but the
message is recognized, a ConfirmDataChannelStatusNack message
Li et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 5818 Data Channel Statuses and LMP April 2010
containing an ERROR_CODE indicating "Channel Status Confirmation
Procedure not supported" MUST be sent.
If the data channel status confirmation procedure is supported, but
the node is unable to begin the procedure, a
ConfirmDataChannelStatusNack message containing an ERROR_CODE
indicating "Unwilling to Confirm" MUST be sent. If a
ConfirmDataChannelStatusNack message is received with such an
ERROR_CODE, the node that originated the ConfirmDataChannelStatus
message MAY schedule the ConfirmDataChannelStatus message
retransmission after a configured time. A default value of
10 minutes is suggested for this timer.
<ConfirmDataChannelStatusNack Message> ::= <Common Header>
[<LOCAL_LINK_ID>]
<MESSAGE_ID_ACK>
<ERROR_CODE>
The contents of the MESSAGE_ID_ACK objects MUST be obtained from the
ConfirmDataChannelStatus message being rejected.
The ERROR_CODE object in this message has a new Class Type (see
Section 8.3), but is formed as the ERROR_CODE object defined in
[RFC4204]. The following Error Codes are defined:
0x01 = Channel Status Confirmation Procedure not supported
0x02 = Unwilling to Confirm
5.2. Data Channel Status Subobject
A new Data Channel Status subobject type is introduced to the DATA
LINK object to hold the Data Channel Status and Data Channel ID.
See Section 8.2 for the Subobject Type value.
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 | Data Channel Status |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Data Channel ID //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Li et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 5818 Data Channel Statuses and LMP April 2010
Data Channel Status:
This is a series of bit flags to indicate the status of the data
channel. The following values are defined.
0x0000 : The channel is available/free.
0x0001 : The channel is unavailable/in-use.
Data Channel ID
This identifies the data channel. The length of this field can be
deduced from the Length field in the subobject. Note that all
subobjects must be padded to a four-byte boundary with trailing
zeros.
If such padding is required, the Length field MUST indicate the
length of the subobject up to, but not including, the first byte of
padding. Thus, the amount of padding is deduced and not represented
in the Length field.
Note that the Data Channel ID is given in the context of the sender
of the ConfirmChannelStatus message.
The Data Channel ID must be encoded as a label value. Based on the
type of signal (e.g., Synchronous Optical Network/Synchronous Digital
Hierarchy (SONET/SDH), Lambda, etc.), the encoding methodology
used will be different. For SONET/SDH, the label value is encoded as
per [RFC4606].
5.3. Message Construction
Data_Link Class (as defined in Section 13.12 of [RFC4204]) is
included in ConfirmDataChannelStatus and ConfirmDataChannelStatusAck
messages.
The status of the TE link end MUST be carried by the Data Channel
Status subobject, which is defined in Section 5.2 of this document.
The new subobject MUST be part of Data_Link Class.
In the case of SONET/SDH, the Data Channel ID in the new subobject
SHOULD be used to identify each timeslot of the data link.
5.4. Backward Compatibility
Some nodes running in the network might only support the LMP Message
Types, which are already defined in [RFC4204]. The three new types
of LMP messages defined in this document cannot be recognized by
these nodes. The behavior of an LMP node that receives an unknown
Li et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 5818 Data Channel Statuses and LMP April 2010
message is not specified in [RFC4204] and will be clarified in a
separate document.
Since the behavior of legacy nodes must be assumed to be unknown,
this document assumes that a deployment intended to support the
function described in this document will consist completely of nodes
that support the protocol extensions also described in this document.
In the future, it may be the case that LMP will be extended to allow
function support to be detected. In that case, it may become
possible to deploy this function in a mixed environment.
6. Procedures
Adjacent nodes MAY send data channel status confirmation-related LMP
messages. Periodical timers or some other events requesting the
confirmation of channel status for the data link may trigger these
messages. It's a local policy decision to start the data channel
status confirmation process. The procedure is described below:
. Initially, the SENDER constructs a ConfirmDataChannelStatus
message that MUST contain one or more DATA_LINK objects. The
DATA_LINK object is defined in [RFC4204]. Each DATA_LINK object
MUST contain one or more Data Channel Status subobjects. The Data
Channel ID field in the Data Channel Status subobject MUST
indicate which data channel needs to be confirmed, and MUST report
the data channel status at the SENDER. The
ConfirmDataChannelStatus message is sent to the RECEIVER.
. Upon receipt of a ConfirmDataChannelStatus message, the RECEIVER
MUST extract the data channel statuses from the
ConfirmDataChannelStatus message and SHOULD compare these with its
data channel statuses for the reported data channels. If a data
channel status mismatch is found, the mismatch result SHOULD be
reported to the management plane for further action. The RECEIVER
also SHOULD send the ConfirmDataChannelStatusAck message, which
MUST carry all the local end statuses of the requested data
channels to the SENDER.
. If the RECEIVER is not able to support or to begin the
confirmation procedure, the RECEIVER MUST send a
ConfirmDataChannelStatusNack message containing the ERROR_CODE
that indicates the reason for rejection.
. Upon receipt of a ConfirmDataChannelStatusAck message, the SENDER
MUST compare the received data channel statuses at the remote end
with the data channel statuses at the local end. If a data
Li et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 5818 Data Channel Statuses and LMP April 2010
channel status mismatch is found, the mismatch result SHOULD be
reported to the management plane for further action.
The data channel status mismatch issue identified by LMP may be
automatically resolved by RSVP restart. For example, the restarting
node may also have damaged its data plane. This leaves the data
channels mismatched. However, RSVP restart will re-install the data
plane state in the restarting node. The issue may also be resolved
via RSVP soft state timeout.
If the ConfirmDataChannelStatus message is not recognized by the
RECEIVER, the RECEIVER ignores this message and will not send out an
acknowledgment message to the SENDER.
Due to the message loss problem, the SENDER may not be able to
receive the acknowledgment message.
ConfirmDataChannelStatus SHOULD be sent using LMP [RFC4204] reliable
transmission mechanisms. If, after the retry limit is reached, a
ConfirmDataChannelStatusAck message or a ConfirmDataChannelStatusNack
message is not received by the SENDER, the SENDER SHOULD terminate
the data channel confirmation procedure and SHOULD raise an alert to
the management plane.
7. Security Considerations
[RFC4204] describes how LMP messages between peers can be secured,
and these measures are equally applicable to the new messages defined
in this document.
The operation of the procedures described in this document does not
of itself constitute a security risk because it does not cause any
change in network state. It would be possible, if the messages were
intercepted or spoofed, to cause bogus alerts in the management
plane, and so the use of LMP security measures described in [RFC4204]
is RECOMMENDED.
Note that performing the procedures described in this document may
provide a useful additional security measure to verify that data
channels have not been illicitly modified.
8. IANA Considerations
8.1. LMP Message Types
IANA maintains the "Link Management Protocol (LMP)" registry, which
has a subregistry called "LMP Message Type". IANA has made the
following three new allocations from this registry.
Li et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 5818 Data Channel Statuses and LMP April 2010
Value Description
------ ---------------------------------
32 ConfirmDataChannelStatus
33 ConfirmDataChannelStatusAck
34 ConfirmDataChannelStatusNack
8.2. LMP Data Link Object Subobject
IANA maintains the "Link Management Protocol (LMP)" registry, which
has a subregistry called "LMP Object Class name space and Class type
(C-Type)". This subregistry has an entry for the DATA_LINK object,
and there is a further embedded registry called "DATA_LINK Sub-object
Class name space". IANA has made the following allocation from this
embedded registry.
Value Description
------ ---------------------------------
9 Data Channel Status
8.3. LMP Error_Code Class Type
IANA maintains the "Link Management Protocol (LMP)" registry, which
has a subregistry called "LMP Object Class name space and Class type
(C-Type)". This subregistry has an entry for the ERROR_CODE object.
IANA has allocated the following new value for an ERROR_CODE class
type.
C-Type Description Reference
------ ---------------------------- ---------
4 ConfirmDataChannelStatusNack [This RFC]
9. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Dimitri Papadimitriou,
and Lou Berger for their useful comments.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4204] Lang, J., Ed., "Link Management Protocol (LMP)",
RFC 4204, October 2005.
Li et al. Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 5818 Data Channel Statuses and LMP April 2010
[RFC5511] Farrel, A., Ed., "Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF):
A Syntax Used to Form Encoding Rules in Various Routing
Protocol Specifications", RFC 5511, April 2009.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and
S. Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) --
Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205,
September 1997.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions",
RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions
in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005.
[RFC4606] Mannie, E. and D. Papadimitriou, "Generalized Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for
Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous
Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control", RFC 4606, August 2006.
[RFC5063] Satyanarayana, A., Ed., and R. Rahman, Ed., "Extensions
to GMPLS Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Graceful
Restart", RFC 5063, October 2007.
[RFC5307] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "IS-IS Extensions
in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 5307, October 2008.
Contributor's Address
Fatai Zhang
Huawei Technologies
F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base
Shenzhen 518129 China
Phone: +86 755-289-72912
EMail: zhangfatai@huawei.com
Li et al. Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 5818 Data Channel Statuses and LMP April 2010
Authors' Addresses
Dan Li
Huawei Technologies
F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base
Shenzhen 518129 China
Phone: +86 755-289-70230
EMail: danli@huawei.com
Huiying Xu
Huawei Technologies
F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base
Shenzhen 518129 China
Phone: +86 755-289-72910
EMail: xuhuiying@huawei.com
Snigdho C. Bardalai
Fujitsu Network Communications
2801 Telecom Parkway
Richardson, Texas 75082, USA
Phone: +1 972 479 2951
EMail: snigdho.bardalai@us.fujitsu.com
Julien Meuric
France Telecom Orange Labs
2, avenue Pierre Marzin
22307 Lannion Cedex, France
Phone: +33 2 96 05 28 28
EMail: julien.meuric@orange-ftgroup.com
Diego Caviglia
Ericsson
Via A. Negrone 1/A 16153
Genoa Italy
Phone: +39 010 600 3736
EMail: diego.caviglia@ericsson.com
Li et al. Standards Track [Page 15]